Archive for December, 2014

Identification 62

December 25, 2014

Identification 62

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

28.2.62 XI 123
Seminar 11: Wednesday 28 February 1962

People may find that I am busying myself here a little bit too
much with what are called – God1s curse on the name – the great
philosophers. The fact is that perhaps not they alone, but they
in an eminent way, articulate what one may well call a pathetic
research because it always returns, if one knows how to consider
it throughout all its detours, its more or less sublime objects,
to this radical knot that I am trying to undo for you namely
desire; it is to this that I hope, by enquiring into it if you
are willing to follow me, to restore decisively its property as
an unsurpassable point, unsurpassable in the very sense that I
mean when I tell you that each one of those who can be described
by this name of great philosopher cannot be surpassed on a
certain point.


I believe that I have the right to confront myself, with your
assistance, with such a task in so far as desire is our business
as psychoanalysts. I believe that I am also required to stick to
it and to ask you to do so with me because it is only by
rectifying our perspective on desire that we can maintain
analytic technique in its primary function, the word primary
needing to be understood in the sense of what appeared first
historically – there was no doubt about it at the beginning -: a
truth function.


Naturally, this is what encourages us to
interrogate this function at a more radical level; this is the
(2) one that I am trying to show you by articulating for you the
following, which is at the basis of analytic experience, that we
are enslaved as men, I mean as desiring beings, whether we know
it or not, whether we think we want it or not to this truth
function. Because, do I have to remind you that the conflicts,
the impasses, which are the raw material of our press, can only
be objectified by making intervene in their operation the place
of the subject as such, qua bound as subject into the structure
of the experience. This is the meaning of identification in so
far as it is defined as such by Freud.


Nothing is more precise, nothing is more demanding than the
calculation of the subjective conjuncture when one has found what
I can call in the proper sense of the term, the sense in which it
is employed in Kant, its practical reason. I prefer to call it
that than to say the operational bias, because of what the term
operational implies for some time now: a sort of avoidance of
what is fundamental. Remember on this point what I taught you
two years ago about this practical reason in so far as it
involves desire. Sade is closer than Kant, even though Sade,
almost mad, as one might say, about his vision, cannot be
understood except by being on this occasion referred to Kant’s
measure in the way I tried to do it.


28.2.62 XI 124

Remember what I told you about it, about the striking analogy
between the total exigency of the liberty of jpuissance in Sade,
with the universal Kantian rule of behaviour. The function on
which desire is founded in our experience makes manifest that it
has nothing to do with what Kant distinguishes as the Wohl, by
(3) opposing it to the Gut and to the good, let us say with well
being, with the useful. This leads us to realise that this goes
much further than this function of desire. It has nothing to do,
I would say, in general with what Kant calls, in order to
relegate it to a second rank in the rules of behaviour, the


Therefore, for those who do not remember very well the sense in
which Kant employs this term, whom this lead into a
misinterpretation, I will try to translate it by saying the
protopathic, or again more generally what is too human in human
experience, limits linked to convenience, to comfort, to dietary
concessions. This goes further, it goes as far as to imply
tissue thirst itself. Let us not forget the role, the function
that I give to anorexia nervosa, as being that in whose first
effects we can sense this function of desire and the role that I
gave it by way of example in order to illustrate the distinction
between desire and need.


Therefore however far convenience, comfort, concession may be
from it will you not tell me that there is no doubt no compromise
because we speak about it all the time. But the compromises that
this function of desire has to pass through are of a different
order to those linked for example to the existence of a community
founded on biological association, because it is in this form
that we have most conveniently to evoke, to recognise, to explain
the function of compromise. You know well that at the point that
we are at, if we follow Freudian thinking to the end, these
compromises involve the relationship of a death instinct to a
(4) life instinct, which are one and the other no less strange to
consider in their dialectical relationships than in their


To begin again, as I always do, at some point of every discourse
that I address to you weekly, I remind you that this death
instinct is not a gnawing worm, a parasite, a wound, not even a
principal of contrariety, something like a sort of Ying opposed
to the Yang, the alternating element. It is clearly articulated
for Freud: a principle which envelopes all the detours of life,
which life, which detours only find their meaning by rejoining
it. To be honest, it is because they are scandalised that some
people distance themselves from it; because here indeed we have
no doubt returned, come back, despite all the positivist
principles, it is true, to the most absurd properly speaking
metaphysical extrapolation, in contempt of all the acquired rules
of prudence. The death instinct in Freud is presented to us as
that which for us, I am thinking in his place, is situated
from the sequellae of what we are here calling the signifier of
life, because what Freud tells us about it is that the essence of
life, reinscribed in the frame of death instinct is nothing other
than the design, required by the law of pleasure, of realising,
of always repeating the same detour in order to come back to the



Identification 61

December 23, 2014

Identification 61

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.2.62 X 122
Therefore, it is well posed that as regards the research into
what the subject is in analysis, namely what one should identify
him to, even if it were only in an alternating fashion, it could
not be other than one of desire.


It is here that I will leave you today, not without pointing out
to you that even though, of course, we are in a position to do it
(21) much better than it was done by the thinker that I am going
to name, we are not so much in no-man’s-land.


I mean that immediately after Kant, there is someone who noticed
it who was called Hegel whose whole Phenomenology of the Spirit
starts from this, from Begierde. He made only one mistake, which
is to have had no knowledge, even though one could designate its
place, of what the mirror stage was.


Hence this irreducible confusion which puts everything under the
angle of the relationship of the master and the slave and which
makes this approach inoperative and makes it necessary to take up
everything from there.


Let us hope, as regards ourselves, that encouraged by the genius
of our master, we can complete in a more satisfactory fashion the
question of the subject of desire.



Aion 206

December 23, 2014

Aion 206

Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格



4. But to turn back to the first vision: the bringing forth of
the woman is followed by copulation. The hieros gamos on the
mountain is a well-known motif,78 just as, in the old alchemical
pictures, the hermaphrodite has a fondness for elevated places.
The alchemists likewise speak of an Adam who always carries
his Eve around with him. Their coniunctio is an incestuous act,
performed not by father and daughter but, in accordance with
the changed times, by brother and sister or mother and son. The
latter variant corresponds to the ancient Egyptian mythologem
of Amen as Ka-mutef, which means ‘husband of his mother,’ or
of Mut, who is the “mother of her father and daughter of her
son.” 79 The idea of self-copulation is a recurrent theme in
descriptions of the world creator: for instance, God splits into
his masculine and feminine halves, 80 or he fertilizes himself in
a manner that could easily have served as a model for the Interrogationes
vision, if literary antecedents must be conjectured.


Thus the relevant passage in the Heliopolitan story of the Creation
runs: “I, even I, had union with my clenched hand, I
joined myself in an embrace with my shadow, I poured seed into
my mouth, my own, I sent forth issue in the form of Shu, I sent
forth moisture in the form of Tefnut.” 81


Although the idea of self-fertilization is not touched on in
our vision, there can be no doubt that there is a close connection
between this and the idea of the cosmogonic self-creator.
Here, however, world creation gives place to spiritual renewal.


That is why no visible creature arises from the taking in
of seed; it means a nourishing of life, “that we may live.” And
because, as the text itself shows, the vision should be understood
on the “heavenly” or spiritual plane, the pouring out (aTroppota)
refers to a Ao’yo? o-Trep/xart/co?, which in the language of the gospels
means a living water “springing up into eternal life.”

那就是为什么没有可得见的生物从种子的吸收里产生。这意味着生命的滋养,「为了让我们生活下去」。因为依照文本自身显示,这个幻景应该被理解,根据「天堂」与精神的层面。倾注提到Ao’yo? o-Trep/xart/co。在使徒书的语言,它意味着生命之水,「喷射出来,进入永恒的生命」。

The whole vision reminds one very much of the related alchemical
symbolisms. Its drastic naturalism, unpleasantly obtrusive in
comparison with the reticence of ecclesiastical language, points
back on the one hand to archaic forms of religion whose ideas
and modes of expression had long since been superseded, but
forwards, on the other, to a still crude observation of Nature
that was just beginning to assimilate the archetype of man.
This attempt continued right up to the seventeenth century, when
Johannes Kepler recognized the Trinity as underlying the structure
of the universe—in other words, when he assimilated this
archetype into the astronomer’s picture of the world.82

整个的幻景让我们想起相关的炼金术的象征主义。跟天启的语言的沉默比较起来,这个象征主义具有它强烈的自然主义,阻碍重重,令人不愉快。一方面,它指回到宗教的过时的形态。它们的观念与表达模式老早以来就已经被取代。另一方面,它指向前,朝著对于自然的依旧简陋的观察。这种观察才刚刚开始吸收人的原型。这种企图一直继续到17世纪,当周汉尼思 凯普勒体认出三位一体,作为是宇宙的结构的基础。换句话说,当他吸收这个原型进入天文学家对于世界的描绘。

207After this digression on the phallic synonyms for the Original
Man, we will turn back to Hippolytus’ account of the central
symbols of the Naassenes and continue with a list of statements
about Hermes.


325 Hermes is a conjurer of spirits (i/^xaywyo’s), a guide of souls
(i/a^oTro/xTros), and a begetter of souls (i/or^v atrto?). But the souls
were “brought down from the blessed Man on high, the archman
Adamas, . . . into the form of clay, that they might serve
the demiurge of this creation, Esaldaios, a fiery god, the fourth
by number.” 83 Esaldaios corresponds to Ialdabaoth, the highest
archon, and also to Saturn.84 The “fourth” refers to the fourth
Person—the devil—who is opposed to the Trinity. Ialdabaoth
means “child of chaos”; hence when Goethe, borrowing from
alchemical terminology, calls the devil the “strange son of
chaos,” the name is a very apt one.

赫密斯是精神的召魂者,众多灵魂的引导者,众多灵魂的产生者。但是众多灵魂从在天堂被赐福的人,阿奇曼 亚当马斯,带领下来,成为泥土的形态。这样,他们才可以用来充当这个创造的神,阿萨达奥斯,一位凶猛的神,排位第四。阿萨达奥斯对应于埃达巴奥斯,这位最崇高的阿琼神,也对应于土星。这「第四位」提到第四个人—恶魔—恶魔跟三位一体相提并论。埃达巴奥斯丁意思是「混沌的小孩」。因此,当歌德从炼金术的术语借用过来,他称恶魔为「混沌的奇怪的儿子」,这个名字恰如其份。

326 Hermes is equipped with the golden wand.85 With it he
“drops sleep on the eyes of the dead and wakes up the sleepers.”
The Naassenes referred this to Ephesians 5 : 14: “Awake, O
sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you
light.” Just as the alchemists took the well-known allegory of
Christ, the lapis angularis or cornerstone, for their lapis philosophorum,
so the Naassenes took it as symbolizing their Protanthropos
Adam, or more precisely, the “inner man,” who is a
rock or stone, since he came from the Trlrp-q rov ‘ASd/xavro^, “fallen
from Adamas the arch-man on high.” 86

赫密斯装备著黄金的魔杖。用这把魔杖,他「将睡眠放置在死者的眼睛上,然后唤醒睡眠的人们」。拿森尼斯将这个提到「以弗所书」第5 : 14章节:「醒来吧!睡眠者,从死者里起来,基督将给予你们光辉。」正如炼金术师採用基督的著名的寓言,精神石头或基石,作为他们的哲学家的石头。拿森尼斯採用它,作为象征他们的神性人形的亚当。或更加贴切地说,这位「内在的人」。他是一块岩石或石头。因为他来自从天堂下凡的亚当斯,这位守门人。

The alchemists said
their stone was “cut from the mountain without hands,” 87 and
the Naassenes say the same thing of the inner man, who was
brought down “into the form of oblivion.” 88 In Epiphanius the
mountain is the Archanthropos Christ, from whom the stone or
inner man was cut. As Epiphanius interprets it, this means that
the inner man is begotten “without human seed,” “a small stone
that becomes a great mountain.” 89


The Archanthropos is the Logos, whom the souls follow
“twittering,” as the bats follow Hermes in the nekyia. He leads
them to Oceanus and—in the immortal words of Homer—to
“the doors of Helios and the land of dreams.” “He [Hermes] is
Oceanus, the begetter of gods and men, ever ebbing and flowing,
now forth, now back.” Men are born from the ebb, and
gods from the flow. “It is this, they say, that stands written: ‘I
have said, you are gods, and all of you the sons of the most
High.'” 90 Here the affinity or identity of God and man is explicit,
in the Holy Scriptures no less than in the Naassene teachings.



Identification 60

December 22, 2014

Identification 60

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

121.2.62 X 10

But for Socrates, the important thing is not there. The
important thing is to say: “Alcibiades, pay a bit more attention
to your soul”, which, believe me, I am well convinced of it, has
not at all the same meaning in Socrates that it took on after the
Platonic development of the notion of the one. If Socrates
responds to him “I know nothing, except, perhaps about the nature
of Eros”, it is indeed because the outstanding function of
Socrates was to have been the first to have conceived what the
true nature of desire was.


(19) And it is exactly for that reason that beginning from this
revelation up to Freud, desire as such in its function, desire
qua the very essence of man as Spinoza says – and everyone knows
what that means, man in Spinoza, is the subject, is the essence
of the subject – that desire remained throughout this respectable
number of centuries a function that is half, three quarters, four
fifths hidden in the history of knowledge.


The subject involved, the one whose track we are following is the
subject of desire and not the subject of love for the simple
reason that one is not the subject of love: one is ordinarily,
one is normally its victim, it is completely different.
In other words, love is a natural force, this is what justifies
what is called Freud’s zoological point of view. Love, is a
reality, it is for this reason moreover that I tell you “the Gods
are real”. Love is Aphrodite who strikes. It was very well
known in antiquity. This astonished nobody.


You will allow me a very nice play on words. It is one of my
most divine obsessionals who produced for me a few days ago:
“l’affreux doute de 1’Hermaphrodite” (the awful doubt of the
Hermaphrodite). I mean that I can do nothing less than think
about it since obviously things have happened which have made us
slide from Aphrodite to awful doubt.


(20) I mean: there is much to be said in favour of Christianity,
I could not support it too much and especially as regards the
disengaging of desire as such.


I do not want to deflower the subject too much, but I am
determined on this point to put all sorts of considerations
before you. That all the same to obtain this most praiseworthy
of ends, this poor love should have been put in the position of
becoming a commandment, is all the same to have dearly paid for
the inauguration of this research, which is that of desire.
We of course, all the same, as analysts, should know how to
summarise a little bit the question about the subject, that what
we have well and truly advanced about love, is that it is the
source of all evil. That makes you laugh.


The least conversation is there to demonstrate to you that the love of the
mother is the cause of everything. I am not saying that one is
always right, but it is all the same on this path that we do our
roundabout every day. It is what results from our daily experience.



Aion 204

December 22, 2014

Aion 204

Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格



320 The splitting of the Original Man into husband and wife
expresses an act of nascent consciousness; it gives birth to a pair
of opposites, thereby making consciousness possible. For the
beholder of the miracle, Mary, the vision was the spontaneous
visualization or projection of an unconscious process in herself.
Experience shows that unconscious processes are compensatory
to a definite conscious situation. The splitting in the vision
would therefore suggest that it is compensating a conscious condition
of unity. This unity probably refers in the first place to
the figure of the Anthropos, the incarnate God, who was then in
the forefront of religious interest. He was, in Origen’s words,
the “Vir Unus,” 70 the One Man. It was with this figure that
Mary was confronted in her vision.


If we assume that the recipient
of the vision was in reality a woman—an assumption that is
not altogether without grounds—then what she had been missing
in the pure, deified masculinity of Christ was the counterbalancing
femininity. Therefore it was revealed to her: “I am both,
man and woman.” This psychologem is still incorporated today
in the Catholic conception of Christ’s androgyny as the
“Virgo de Virgine,” though this is more a sententia communis
than a conclusio. Medieval iconography sometimes shows Christ
with breasts, in accordance with Song of Solomon 1:1: ‘For
thy breasts are better than wine” (DV).


In Mechthild of Magdeburg,
the soul remarks that when the Lord kissed her,71 he had,
contrary to expectation, no beard. The tokens of masculinity
were lacking. Mechthild had a vision similar to Mary’s, dealing
with the same problem from a different angle: she saw herself
transported to a “rocky mountain” where the Blessed Virgin
sat, awaiting the birth of the divine child. When it was born,
she embraced it and kissed it three times. As the text points out,
the mountain is an allegory of the “spiritualis habitus,” or
spiritual attitude. “Through divine inspiration she knew how
the Son is the innermost core [medulla] of the Father’s heart.”
This medulla is “strengthening, healing, and most sweet”; God’s
“strength and greatest sweetness” are given to us through the
Son, the “Saviour and strongest, sweetest Comforter,” but “the
innermost [core] of the soul is that sweetest thing.” 72 From this
it is clear that Mechthild equates the “medulla” with the
Father’s heart, the Son, and the inner man. Psychologically
speaking, “that sweetest thing” corresponds to the self, which is
indistinguishable from the God-image.


There is a significant difference between the two visions.
The antique revelation depicts the birth of Eve from Adam on
the spiritual level of the second Adam (Christ), from whose side
the feminine pneuma, or second Eve, i.e., the soul, appears as
Christ’s daughter. As already mentioned, in the Christian view
the soul is interpreted as the Church: she is the woman who
“embraces the man” 73 and anoints the Lord’s feet. Mechthild’s
vision is a continuation of the sacred myth: the daughter-bride
has become a mother and bears the Father in the shape of the


That the Son is closely akin to the self is evident from the
emphasis laid on the quaternary nature of Christ: he has a
“fourfold voice” (quadruplex vox),7* his heart has four kinds
of pulse, 75 and from his countenance go forth four rays of
light. 76 In this image a new millennium is speaking. Meister
Eckhart, using a different formulation, says that “God is born
from the soul,” and when we come to the Cherubinic Wanderer
77 of Angelus Silesius, God and the self coincide absolutely.
The times have undergone a profound change: the procreative
power no longer proceeds from God, rather is God born from
the soul. The mythologem of the young dying god has taken on
psychological form—a sign of further assimilation and conscious

儿子酷似自性这一点是显而易见,根据对于基督的四分图的特性,所给予的强调:他具有「四重的声音」,他的心具有四重的脉搏,从他的脸孔焕发出四道光辉。在这个意象里,新的千禧年正在言说。欧克哈德牧师使用一个不同的说明:「上帝从灵魂诞生,」当我们读到安吉鲁 希力西思的Cherubinic Wanderer:上帝与自性绝对符合一致。这些时刻曾经经历深奥的改变:繁殖的力量不再从上帝继续下去。而是,上帝从灵魂诞生。年轻的垂死的神的神话具有心理学的形态—这是更进一步吸收与实践意识的迹象。


Identification 59

December 21, 2014

Identification 59

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.2.62 X 8

(15) All this having been said, it remains indeed that there are
still all the same quite a few people whom that does not frighten
and that, as a consequence, it is not crazy – let us say simply,
I am forced to tackle the thing like that, since after all,
nobody has said it like that, when I will have said it two or
three times to you, I think that this will end up by becoming
quite obvious to you – it is not crazy to think that in the case
of the beings who cannot have a normal, satisfying relationship I
mean of desire with the partner of the opposite sex: not alone
does it not frighten him, but it is precisely this which is
interesting namely that it is not because the penis is not there
that the phallus is not there. I would even say on the contrary.


Which allows there to be rediscovered at a number of crossroads
this in particular that what desire seeks is less the desirable
in the other than the desiring, namely what is lacking in him,
and there again I would ask you to recall that it is the first
aporia, the first abc of the question, as it begins to be
articulated when you open this famous Symposium which seems to
have traversed the centuries only for the theology that can be
constructed around it. I am trying to make something else of it,
namely to make you grasp that on every line, what is spoken of
effectively is what is in question, namely Eros.


I desire the other as desiring and when I say as desiring, I did
not even say, I deliberately did not say as desiring me: because
it is I who desire, and desiring desire, this desire could only
be desire for me if I rediscover myself at this turning point
(16) where of course I am, namely if I love myself in the other,
in other words if it is myself that I love.


But then, I am abandoning desire. What I am in the process of
accentuating, is this limit, this frontier which separates desire
from love: which does not mean, of course, that they do not
condition it in all sorts of ways – this is even the whole drama
here – as I think ought to be the first remark that you should
make to yourselves about your experience as an analyst, it being
well understood that it happens as it does to many other subjects
at this level of human reality and that it is often the common
man who is closest to what I would call on this occasion the
bone. What is to be desired is obviously always what is lacking,
and it is indeed for that reason that in French desire is called
desidorium which means regrets.


And this also connects up with what I accentuated last year as
being the point always aimed at by the ethics of the passions,
which is to bring about, I am not saying this synthesis, but this
conjunction regarding which it is a question of knowing whether
precisely it is not structurally impossible, if it does not
remain an ideal point outside the limits of the working drawing,
which I called the metaphor of true love, which is the famous
the eron substituting himself, the désirer
substituting himself for the desired at this point, and through
this metaphor equivalent to the perfection of the lover as it is
also articulated in the Symposium, namely this reversal of this
(17) whole property of what one could call:


the naturally
loveable, the heartbreak in love which puts everything that can
be desirable in itself outside the range of lovingness, as I
might say, this noli me amare, which is the true secret, the true
final word of the ideal passion of this courtly love whose term,
which has so little to do with the present, I placed for very
good reasons, I mean however confusing it has become, at the
horizon of what I articulated last year, preferring to substitute
for it as more present, more exemplary this order of experience,
for its part not at all ideal, but perfectly accessible, which is
our own under the name of transference and which I illustrated
for you, already showed, illustrated in the Symposium under this
quite paradoxical form of a properly speaking analytic
interpretation by Socrates after the long mad exhibitionistic
declaration, indeed, the analytic rule applied at full tilt to
the discourse of Alcibiades.


No doubt, you have been able to retain the irony implicitly
contained in something which is not hidden in the text, which is
that the one whom Socrates desires at the time for the beauty of
the demonstration is Agathon, in other words, the deconograph,
the pure spirit, the one who speaks about love in the way in
which one ought no doubt speak about it by comparing it to peace
on the waves, in a frankly comic tone, but without doing it
deliberately, and even without noticing it.


In other words what does Socrates mean?

Why would Socrates not love Agathon if precisely stupidity, like
(18) M Teste, is precisely what he is lacking. Stupidity is not
my strong point, it is a teaching, because that means – and this
then is articulated literally – to Alcibiades: “my dear friend,
talk on, because it is him that you also love”.

为什么苏格拉底不爱阿甘丰?假如愚蠢确实就是他所欠缺的东西,像M Teste一样。愚蠢并不是我的强项,愚蠢是一种教训,因为那意味着—这实质上当时被表达—针对阿西比底斯:「我亲爱的朋友,请继续说下去,因为你爱的,也是他。」

It is for Agathon this whole long discourse. Only, the difference, is that
you for your part do not know what is in question: your strength,
your mastery, your riches lead you astray, and in effect, we know
enough about the life of Alcibiades to know that few things were
lacking to him in the most extreme order of what one can have.
In his own way very different to that of Socrates, he also was
nowhere. Received moreover with open arms wherever he went,
people always too happy to make such an acquisition. A certain
atopia was his lot.


He himself was too much of a burden. When
he came to Sparta, he found simply that he was doing a great
honour to the King of Sparta – this is reported in Plutarch,
clearly articulated – by having a child with his wife for
example, this to give you the style of the man, this is the least
of it, there are some really hard men around.



Aion 202

December 20, 2014

Aion 202

Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格



The fact that not only the Gnostic Logos but Christ himself
was drawn into the orbit of sexual symbolism is corroborated by
the fragment from the Interrogationes maiores Mariae, quoted
by Epiphanius.60 It is related there that Christ took this Mary
with him on to a mountain, where he produced a woman from
his side and began to have intercourse with her: “. . . seminis
sui defluxum assumpsisset, indicasse illi, quod oporteat sic
facere, ut vivamus.” 61 It is understandable that this crude symbolism
should offend our modern feelings. But it also appeared
shocking to Christians of the third and fourth centuries; and
when, in addition, the symbolism became associated with a
concretistic misunderstanding, as appeared to be the case in certain
sects, it could only be rejected. That the author of the
Interrogationes was by no means ignorant of some such reaction
is evident from the text itself. It says that Mary received such a
shock that she fell to the ground. Christ then said to her:
“Wherefore do you doubt me, O you of little faith?” This was
meant as a reference to John 3:12: “If I have told you earthly
things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you
heavenly things?” and also to John 6 : 54: “Unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in

不但是诺斯替教派的逻各斯,而且基督自己,都被吸引进人性象征的轨道。这个事实更加被推波助澜,因为 阿皮费尼亚引述的“玛丽亚轶闻“。根据里面描述,耶稣带着这位玛丽亚跟他到山上,在那里,他从他身边产生一位女子,然后开始与她性交:可以理解到,这种粗俗的象征主义竟然冒犯我们现代的情感。但是第三世纪与第四世纪的基督徒也甚感惊吓。除外,这个象征主义跟具体表现的误解息息相关。如同在某些教派,似乎就是这个情况。它就是仅能被排斥。“玛丽亚轶闻“的作者并非不知道某些这样的反应,从文本自身来看是显而易见。据说,玛丽接受这样的惊吓,以致于她昏倒在地。基督然后对他说:「你为什么怀疑我? 啊,你的信心那么薄弱?」这段话在约翰全书第3:12章节被提到:「假如我曾经告诉你们世间的事物,而你们不相信。假如我告诉你们天堂的事物,你们如何能相信?」而且,也提到约翰全书6 : 54章节:「除非你们吃人子的肉,饮他的血,你们身上没有生命。」

3*5 This symbolism may well have been based, originally, on
some visionary experience, such as happens not uncommonly
today during psychological treatment. For the medical psychologist
there is nothing very lurid about it. The context itself
points the way to the right interpretation. The image expresses
a psychologem that can hardly be formulated in rational terms
and has, therefore, to make use of a concrete symbol, just as a
dream must when a more or less “abstract” thought comes up
during the abaissement du niveau mental that occurs in sleep.
These “shocking” surprises, of which there is certainly no lack
in dreams, should always be taken “as-if,” even though they
clothe themselves in sensual imagery that stops at no scurrility
and no obscenity. They are unconcerned with offensiveness,
because they do not really mean it. It is as if they were stammering
in their efforts to express the elusive meaning that grips
the dreamer’s attention.62


The context of the vision (John 3:12) makes it clear that
the image should be taken not concretistically but symbolically;
for Christ speaks not of earthly things but of a heavenly or
spiritual mystery—a “mystery” not because he is hiding something
or making a secret of it (indeed, nothing could be more
blatant than the naked obscenity of the vision!) but because its
meaning is still hidden from consciousness.


The modern method
of dream-analysis and interpretation follows this heuristic rule.63
If we apply it to the vision, we arrive at the following result:

1. The mountain means ascent, particularly the mystical,
spiritual ascent to the heights, to the place of revelation where
the spirit is present. This motif is so well known that there is no
need to document it.


2. The central significance of the Christ-figure for that
epoch has been abundantly proved. In Christian Gnosticism it
was a visualization of God as the Archanthropos (Original Man
= Adam), and therefore the epitome of man as such: “Man
and the Son of Man.” Christ is the inner man who is reached by
the path of self-knowledge, “the kingdom of heaven within
you.” As the Anthropos he corresponds to what is empirically
the most important archetype and, as judge of the living and
the dead and king of glory, to the real organizing principle of the
unconscious, the quaternity, or squared circle of the self.85
In saying this I have not done violence to anything; my views
are based on the experience that mandala structures have the
meaning and function of a centre of the unconscious personality.
66 The quaternity of Christ, which must be borne in mind
in this vision, is exemplified by the cross symbol, the rex gloriae,
and Christ as the year.
In saying this I have not done violence to anything; my views
are based on the experience that mandala structures have the
meaning and function of a centre of the unconscious personality.
66 The quaternity of Christ, which must be borne in mind
in this vision, is exemplified by the cross symbol, the rex gloriae,
and Christ as the year.

二、 对于那个时代,基督-人物的中心的意义曾经丰富地被证明。在基督教的诺斯教派,它是上帝的拟想,作为是神的人像化(原初的人=亚当)。因此,人自身的轮廓是:「人与人之子」。基督就是凭借理解自性的途径而到达的内在的人。「在你自身之内的天堂的王国」。作为神性人像,他符合经验的最重要的原型。作为荣耀的生者,死者与国王,他符合无意识的真实的组织的原则,四分图或自性的方形圆圈。当我这样说,我并没有对于任何事情施加暴力。我的观点的根据这个经验:曼陀罗的结构拥有无意识人格的中心的意义与功能。基督的四分图,在这个幻景里,必须被记在心里。它以十字象征作为典范,基督作为年。

3. The production of the woman from his side suggests that
he is interpreted as the second Adam. Bringing forth a woman
means that he is playing the role of the Creator-god in Genesis.67
Just as Adam, before the creation of Eve, was supposed by various
traditions to be male /female,68 so Christ here demonstrates
his androgyny in a drastic way.69 The Original Man is usually
hermaphroditic; in Vedic tradition too he produces his own
feminine half and unites with her. In Christian allegory the
woman sprung from Christ’s side signifies the Church as the
Bride of the Lamb.

三、 从基督的胁边产生这位女人暗示着:基督被解释为第二个亚当。产生一个女人意味着:他正在扮演创世纪的创造主的角色。正如亚当在夏娃的被创造之前,被各色各样的传统认为是男性兼女性,在此的基督以强烈的方式证明他的雌雄同体。原初的人通常是雌雄同体。在威迪克的传统里,他也产生他自己的女性的一半,然后跟她结合一体。在基督教的寓言,这位女人从基督的胁边蹦跳出来,意味着教会,作为绵羊的新娘。


Identification 58

December 19, 2014

Identification 58

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.2.62 X 7
The schema is the following: subject
It concerned what Freud speaks to us about at this level of the
“Introduction to narcissism” namely that we love the other from
the same humid substance as the one of which we are the
(13) reservoir, which is called libido, and that it is in so far
as it is here that it can be there (see the schema) namely
surrounding, swamping, wetting the object in front.


The referring of love to humidity does not come from me, it is in
the Symposium which we gave a commentary on last year.
The moral is: this metaphysics of love – because this is what is
involved – the fundamental element of Liebesbedingung, of the
condition of love, the moral is: in a certain sense I only love –
what is called loving, what we call here loving, there is also
the matter of what exists as a remainder beyond love, therefore
what is called loving in a certain fashion – I only love my body,
even when I transfer this love onto the body of the other. Of
course a good amount of it still remains on my own. It is even
indispensable, up to a certain point, even if only in the extreme
case of what must of course function autoerotically, namely my
penis, to take for simplicicity the androcentric point of view.
There is no problem about this simplification, as you will see,
because this is not what interests us.


What interests us is the phallus. Now, I proposed to you
implicitly, if not explicitly in the sense that it is even more
explicit now than last year, I proposed to you to define with
respect to what I love in the other who for his part is subject
to this hydraulic condition of the equivalence of the libido,
namely that when it increases on one side, it increases also on
the other, what I desire, what is different in what I experience,
(14) is what in the form of pure reflection of what remains
invested of me whatever the circumstances is precisely what is
lacking to the body of the other in so far as it is constituted
from the point of view of desire by this impregnation of the
humidity of love, at the level of desire, this body of the other,
at least however little I love it, only takes on a value
precisely from what it lacks, and it is very precisely for that
reason that I was going to say that heterosexuality is possible,
because we have to understand one another.


If it is true, as analysis teaches us, that it is the fact that
the woman is effectively castrated from the penile point of view
which frightens some people, if what we say there is not at all
nonsensical – and it is not at all nonsensical because it is
obvious, one meets it at every turn in neurotics – I insist: I
am saying that it is well and truly there that we have discovered
it, I mean that we are sure because it is there that the
mechanisms operate with such subtlety that there is no other
hypothesis possible to explain the way in which the the neurotic
establishes, constitutes his hysterical or obsessional desire.


Which will lead me this year to articulate completely for you the
meaning of the desire of the hysteric as well as that of the
obsessional, and very quickly, because I would say that up to a
certain point, it is urgent. If this how things are, it is even
more conscious in the homosexual than in the neurotic: the
homosexual tells you himself because it has all the same a very
painful effect on him to be confronted with this being without a
penis. It is precisely because of this that we cannot trust it
all that much and moreover, we are right. It is for this reason
that I take my reference from the neurotic.



Aion 199

December 19, 2014

Aion 199

Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格



311 The Naassenes themselves considered Naas, the serpent, to
be their central deity, and they explained it as the “moist substance,”
in agreement with Thales of Miletus, who said water
was the prime substance on which all life depended. Similarly,
all living things depend on the Naas; “it contains within itself,
like the horn of the one-horned bull, the beauty of all things.”
It “pervades everything, like the water that flows out of Eden
and divides into four sources” (apxas). “This Eden, they say, is
the brain.” Three of the rivers of Paradise are sensory functions
(Pison = sight, Gihon = hearing, Tigris = smell), but the
fourth, the Euphrates, is the mouth, “the seat of prayer and the
entrance of food.” As the fourth function it has a double significance,
42 denoting on the one hand the purely material activity
of bodily nourishment, while on the other hand it “gladdens,
43 feeds, and forms [xapaKT-qpi&i] the spiritual, perfect [tc’Aoov]
man.” 44 The “fourth” is something special, ambivalent—
a daimonion. A good example of this is in Daniel 3 : 24L, where
the three men in the burning fiery furnace are joined by a
fourth, whose form was “like a son of God.”


3 1 * The water of the Euphrates is the “water above the firmament,”
the “living water of Which the Saviour spoke,” 45 and
possessing, as we have seen, magnetic properties. It is that
miraculous water from which the olive draws its oil and the
grape the wine. “That man,” continues Hippolytus, as though
still speaking of the water of the Euphrates, “is without honour
in the world.” 46 This is an allusion to the i-eAeios avOpuiros. Indeed,
this water is the “perfect man,” the pr/fia Beov, the Word
sent by God. “From the living water we spiritual men choose
that which is ours,” 47 for every nature, when dipped in this
water, “chooses its own substances . . . and from this water
goes forth to every nature that which is proper to it.” 48 The
water or, as we could say, this Christ is a sort of panspermia, a
matrix of all possibilities, from which the irvevixariKo? chooses
“his Osob,” his idiosyncrasy,49 that “flies to him more [quickly]
than iron to the magnet.”

欧拉提斯的水是「苍穹天空的水」,「救赎者谈论到的生命之水」。我们已经看出,它拥有磁性魔力的特质。就是从那个奇迹的水那里,橄榄油获得它的油,从葡萄获得酒。「那个人」,海普利塔斯继续说,好像他依旧在谈论欧拉提斯的水,「在世界上并无荣耀」。这是提到i-eAeios avOpuiros。 的确,这个水是「完美的人」,上帝送出的真理。
「从生命之水那里,我们作为精神的人们选择属于我们自己的东西」。因为当每个天性浸入这个水中,它选择它自己的物质。从这个水里,它前往每个适合于它的天下。我们能够说,这个水,或这位基督是一种的「生命起源于外太空理论」,各种可能性的基座。从这个基座,这个irvevixariKo 选择他的奥索波,他的怪癖。他的怪癖飞向他,比铁飞向磁石还要快速。

But the “spiritual men” attain their
proper nature by entering in through the “true door,” Jesus
Makarios (the blessed), and thus obtaining knowledge of their
own wholeness, i.e., of the complete man. This man, unhonoured
in the world, is obviously the inner, spiritual man, who
becomes conscious for those who enter in through Christ, the
door to life, and are illuminated by him. Two images are
blended here: the image of the “strait gate,” and that of
John 14 : 6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one
comes to the Father but through me.” 51 They represent an
integration process that is characteristic of psychological individuation.
As formulated, the water symbol continually coalesces
with Christ and Christ with the inner man. This, it seems
to me, is not a confusion of thought but a psychologically correct
formulation of the facts, since Christ as the “Word” is indeed
the “living water” and at the same time the symbol of the
inner “complete” man, the self.


3*3 For the Naassenes, the universal “Ground” is the Original
Man, Adam, and knowledge of him is regarded as the beginning of perfection and the bridge to knowledge of God.52 He is male/female; from him come “father and mother”; 53 he consists of three parts: the rational (vocpov), the psychic, and the
earthly (Xolk6v). These three “came down together into one man,
Jesus,” and “these three men spoke together, each of them from
his own substance to his own,” i.e., from the rational to the
rational, etc.


Through this doctrine Jesus is related to the
Original Man (Christ as second Adam). His soul is “of three
parts and (yet) one”—a Trinity.54 As examples of the Original
Man the text mentions the Cabiros 55 and Oannes. The latter
had a soul capable of suffering, so that the “figure (wkdo-fjia) of
the great, most beautiful and perfect man, humbled to a slave,”
might suffer punishment. He is the “blessed nature, at once
hidden and revealed, of everything that has come to be and
will be,” “the kingdom of heaven which is to be sought within
man” (lvr6^ avQp&icov), even “in children of seven years.” 56 For
the Naassenes, says Hippolytus, place the “procreative nature of
the Whole in the procreative seed.” 57


On the face of it, this
looks like the beginnings of a “sexual theory” concerning the
underlying psychic substance, reminiscent of certain modern
attempts in the same vein. But one should not overlook the fact
that in reality man’s procreative power is only a special instance
of the “procreative nature of the Whole.” “This, for them, is
the hidden and mystical Logos,” which, in the text that follows,
is likened to the phallus of Osiris—”and they say Osiris is water.”
Although the substance of this seed is the cause of all things, it
does not partake of their nature.


They say therefore: “I become
what I will, and I am what I am.” For he who moves everything
is himself unmoved. “He, they say, is alone good.” 58 A further
synonym is the ithyphallic Hermes Kyllenios. “For they say
Hermes is the Logos, the interpreter and fashioner of what has
been, is, and will be.” That is why he is worshipped as the
phallus, because he, like the male organ, “has an urge [6p^?jv]
from below upwards.” 59

他们因此说:「我成为我将成为的生命,我现在是我生命的实存」。因为他能够移动万物,他自己却是不被移动。「据说,仅有他才是善」。更进一步的同义词是勃起的阳具,赫密斯 基伦尼奥斯。「因为据说赫密斯就是逻可斯,已经成为与将会成为的生命的诠释者与塑造者」。那就是为什么他被崇拜,作为阳具。因为他像男人的性器官,具有从底下往上挺直的欲望。


Identification 57

December 18, 2014

Identification 57

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.2.62 X 6

It is for this reason that Pichón’s remarks are very interesting
because they show us that in French, one sees the two elements of
negation operating so well, the relationship of the ne with the
pas, that one could say that French in effect has this privilege,
not unique moreover among other tongues, of showing that there is
no veritable negation in French.


What is curious moreover, is
that they do not see that if this is the way things are, it
should go a little bit further than the field of the French
domain, if one can express oneself in that way. It is, in
effect, very easy in all sorts of forms to understand that it is
necessarily the same everywhere given that the function of the
subject is not suspended at its root on the diversity of tongues.
It is very easy to see that the not at a certain moment of the
evolution of the English language is something like naught.


Let us go back in order that I may reassure you that we are not
losing our goal. Let us begin again from last year from
Socrates, from Alcibiades and from the whole clique who, I hope,
provided a little diversion for you at that stage. It is a
matter of connecting this logical reversal about the function of
1 with something with which we have been dealing with for a long
time, namely desire; since because of the time that I have not
spoken to you about it it is possible that things have become a
little bit vague, I am going to give a little reminder which I
believe it is just the moment to give in this presentation, this
(12) year.


As regards the following – as you remember, it is a
discursive fact, that it was in this way that I introduced the
question of identification last year, it was properly speaking,
when I tackled what ought to be constituted for us about the
narcissistic relationship as a consequence of the equivalence
put forward by Freud between narcissistic libido and object


You know how I symbolised it at the time: a little
intuitive schema, I mean something which is represented, a
schema, not a schema in the Kantian sense. Kant is a very good
reference. In French it is dull. M M …………. have
accomplished all the same quite a feat by turning the reading of
The Critique of Pure Reason, which it is absolutely not
unthinkable to say that from a certain angle can be read as an
erotic book, into something absolutely monotonous and dusty.
Perhaps thanks to my commentaries, you will manage, even in
French, to restore to it this sort of spice that it is not
exaggerated to say it involves.


In any case, I had always
allowed myself to be persuaded that it was badly written in
German, because first of all the Germans, with certain exceptions
have the reputation of writing badly, it is not true: The
Critique of Pure Reason is written as well as Freud’s books – and
that is no small thing.