From an other to the Other30

From an other to the Other30
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

So then we have another quarter of an hour and the little note that I
received goes as follows: “Last Wednesday you related, without
specifying, the ordered pair and a signifier represents the subject fo r
another signifier, (S S) ”. That is quite true. That is why no doubt
my correspondent put a bar underneath and underneath the bar “Why?”
with a question mark. Underneath the why another bar, then marked
by two big points or more exactly two little circles filled $ – > S
in in black. “When the ordered pair is introduced into
mathematics some force is necessary to create it.”

因此，我们还有15分钟，我收到一个小字条，内容如下：「上个星期三，你没有指明地描述能指的秩序的配对，能指针对另一个能指代表主体（S’S）。那是相当正确的。那就是为什么无可置疑地，我的对话者在底下画一条杠，在这条杠底下用一个问号“？“(为什么)。在这个问号底下，还有另一条杠，然后用两个大点标示，或更加贴切地是，用两个小圆圈用黑色填满。「当有秩序的配对被介绍进入数学，需要某个力量，才能创造它。」

From this I recognise that the person who sent me this sheet knows what she
is saying, namely, that she has a least a shadow, and probably more, of
mathematical instruction. It is quite true. One begins by articulating
(55) the function of what a set is and if one does not introduce into it,
in effect, the function of the ordered pair by this sort of force that in
logic is^alled an axiom, well then, there is nothing more to be done
with it than what you have first defined as a set. In parenthesis, one
adds on – either directly or indirectly – the set has two elements. “The
result o f this force is to create one signifier that replaces the coexistence
o f two signifiers”.

从这里，我体会到，送给我这个纸条的这个人知道她正在说什么。换句话说，她至少拥有一个阴影。更有可能的，是数学教学的阴影。这完全真实。我们开始表达数学集合是什么的功能。实际上，假如我们并没有介绍有秩序配对的这个功能进入它，用逻辑上所谓的定理的这种力量。呵呵，对于它，我们所能做的事情仅是你们首先定义为数学集合的东西。在括弧里，我们补充—无论是直接或间接地补充—这个集合具有两个元素：「这个力量的结果就是要创造一个能指，取代两个能指的共同的存在。」

This is quite correct. A second remark
“The ordered pair determines the two components, while in the
formula a signifier represents the subject fo r another signifier, it would
be astonishing fo r a subject to determine two signifiers.” I only have a
quarter of an hour and nevertheless I hope to have the time to clarify as
it should be done, because it is not difficult, what I stated the last time,
which proves that I did not state it adequately since someone, who as
you can see is very serious, questions me in these terms.

这是相当正确的。第二个谈论「有秩序的这个配对决定这两个成分。在公式里，一个能指针对另外一个能指代表主体。另一方面，假如主体决定两个能指，则是令人大吃一惊。」我仅剩15分钟。可是，我希望拥有时间澄清，依照它应该被做到。因为这并不困难，我上次陈述的东西，证明我并没有充分地陈述它。因为你们看出，有某个非常认真的人，用这些术语质疑我。

I am therefore going to write on the board – whatever may be the
inconvenience that was pointed out to me the last time about using the
board which ought to be put there so that everyone can see what I am
writing and that is not going to happen today given the difficulties that
conditioned my arriving late – this: At no time did I subsume
the co-existence o f two signifiers into one subject.

我因此将要写在黑板上—上次跟我指出的这个怎样的不方便，关于使用黑板。这个黑板应该被放在那里，这样每个人才能够看见我正在书写的东西。今天不会发生这样的事情，考虑到这些困难，造成我晚到的困难。这个公式《S1-S2》。我从来没有将两个能指的共同存在，放进一个主体里。

If I introduce the
ordered pair, as my interlocutor surely knows, I write for example the
following: , these two signs by a lucky chance find themselves
to be the two pieces of my diamond shape when they are connected up,
these two signs only serve on this occasion to very specifically write
that this is an ordered pair.

假如我介绍这个有秩序的配对，如同我的对谈者确实知道的。譬如，我书写以下的公式：《Sa-S2》。这两个符号很幸运地发现它们自己成为我的鑽石形状的两个，当它们被联接，在这个场合，这两个符号仅是用来明确地书写：这是一个有秩序的配对。

The translation in the form of a set, I mean
articulated in the sense of the benefit expected from the force in
question, is to translate this into a set whose two elements, the
elements in a set being always themselves the set, you see there being
repeated the bracket sign {(Si), (Si S2)}, the second element of this set
{Si, S2}, an ordered pair is a set which has two elements, a set formed
from the first element of the pair and a second set; they are then both
one and the other subsets formed from the two elements of the ordered
pair. {(S,), (S,, S2)}

这个数学集合的形状的翻译，我指的是它被表达，用受到置疑的力量所期望的利益的意义。这是要将这个翻译成为一个集合，这个集合的两个元素，集合里的元素自身总就是集合。你们看见这个括弧顶符号被重复：{(Si), (Si S2)}。这个集合的第二个元素{Si, S2}，有秩序的配对就是具有两个元素的集合。它们因此一个与另外一个次集合。这个次集合被形成，用有秩序的配的的这两个元素：{(S,), (S,, S2)}

Far from the subject here in any way subsuming the two signifiers in
question, you see, I suppose, how easy it is to say that the signifier Si
here does not stop representing the subject as my definition the
signifier represents a subject fo r another signifier articulates it, while
the second subset makes present what my correspondent call this “coexistence”,
namely, in its broadest form this form of relation that one
can call “knowledge”.

这个主体丝毫没有包括这两个受到质疑的能指，你们明白，我认为，我们很容易说：在此的这个能指S1并没有停止代表主体，作为我的定义所表达：一个能指针对另外一个能指代表主体。第二个次集合让我的对谈者所为的“共同存在“出现。换句话说，以它最广义的形式，我们称为”知识“的关系的这个形式。

The question that I am posing in this
(56) connection and in the most radical form, whether a knowledge is
conceivable that reunites this conjunction of two subsets in a single
one, in such a way that they can be under the name of O, of the big O,
identical to the conjunction as it is here articulated in a knowledge of
the two signifiers in question.

关于这点，用最强烈的形式，我正在提出的这个问题，无论知识是否能够被构想，重新统一这两个次集合的联接，用单一的次集合，以这样的方式，它们能够在大他者O的名义之下，这个认同于联接的大他者O。因为它在此被表达，用受到质疑的两个能指的知识。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Identification 210

Identification 210
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII 241
The idea, for example, of any kind of antinomy whatsoever between
word and affect, even though it may be empirically verified in
experience, is nevertheless not something on which we can
articulate a dialectic, if what I am trying to do before you has
a value, namely allows you to develop as far as possible all the
consequences of the effect that man is an animal condemned to
dwell in language. Hence, we cannot in any way hold affect to be
anything whatsoever without ending up in some sort of primariness
(primarite). No significant affect, none of those we have to
deal with from anxiety to anger and all the others, can even
begin to be understood except within a reference in which the
relationship of x to the signifier is primary.

譬如，文字与情感之间的任何种类的对立的这个观念，即使在经验上可以实证验证。可是，这个观念并不是某件我们能够表达作为辩证的东西。假如我正在你们面前尝试做的东西具有价值，换句话说，让你们能够尽可能地发展这个影响的所有的结果，人作为注定驻居于语言的动物的这个影响的所有的结果。因此，我们无法以任何方式将情感认为是任何可以避免某种原初性的东西。从焦虑到愤怒，以及所有的其他情感，我们必须处理的，甚至没有一样能够开始被理解，除了在一个指称里。在这个指称里，未知数x跟能指的关系是原初性。

Before emphasizing the distortions, I mean that with respect to certain
breakthroughs which would be the next stage, I want of course to
mark the positive aspect of what was already permitted to her by
the simple usage of these terms in the forefront of which are
those which she made use of with correctness and skill: desire
and demand. It is not enough to have heard about this which – if
one makes use of them in a certain fashion, but they are not all
the same such esoteric words that anyone feels that they cannot
use them – it is not enough to use these terms: desire and
demand, in order to apply them correctly. Certain people have
tried it recently and I am not sure that the result was in any
way either brilliant – which after all would only be of secondary
importance – or even had the slightest relationship with the
function that we give to these terms.

在我强调这些扭曲之前，我的意思是，关于某种的突破，那将是下一阶段，我当然想要标示她已经被容许的东西的这个积极的面向，凭据对于这些术语的简单的使用。这些术语的最前端就是她正确而巧妙地利用的这些术语：欲望与要求。光是曾经听过这个术语并不足够。假如我们利用它们，用某种的方式。但是它们仍然并不是如此奥秘的文字，以致于任何人都会感觉到，他们无法使用它们：欲望与要求，为了正确地运用它们。最近某些人们曾经尝试这样做，我并不确定，结果是否辉煌。毕竟，这仅是次要。或是跟我们给予这些术语的功能，具有丝毫的关系。

This is not the case for Mme Aulagnier, but something that
allowed her to attain at certain moments a tone which manifested
a sort of conquest, even if only in the form of the question
posed. The handling of these terms allows us to designate the
first very impressive opening that she gave us. I would point
out to you what she said about orgasm or more exactly about
loving jouissance.

这并不是奥拉尼尔的情况。但是某件东西让她能够获得，在某个时刻获得展现某种征服的语调。即使採用的形式上提出问题。对于这些术语的处理，让我们能够指明，她给予我们的最初的印象深刻的开放。我将跟你们指出，她所说的东西，关于高潮，或更加贴切地是，关于爱的欢爽。

If I may be allowed to address myself to her as Socrates might
address himself to some …….. I would say to her that she
proves that she knows what she is talking about. That she does
it as a woman, this is what traditionally seems to be
self-evident. I am less sure about it: rare are the women, I
would say, whatever about knowing, who are able to talk while
knowing what they are saying about the things of love. Socrates
(23) said that undoubtedly he could bear witness to that himself,
that he knew.

假如我被容许跟她谈论，如同苏格拉底跟某个门徒谈论、、、我想要对她说：她证明她知道她正在谈论什么。作为女人，她这样做，这是传统上看起来是自明的。我对这件事情并没有那样确定。这样的女人是罕见的，我不妨说，关于知识，能够谈论而又知道她们正在谈论什么的女人，关于爱情的事情。苏格拉底说，无可置疑地，他自己能够见证到那件事情，他知道。

The women are therefore rare, but you should
clearly understand what I mean by that: the men are even more so.
As Mme Aulagnier told us, in connection with what loving
jouissance is, in rejecting once and for all this famous
reference to fusion which should alert us who have given a quite
archaic sense to this term fusion, you cannot at the same time
require that it is at the end of a process that one arrives at a
moment that is qualified as unique, and at the same time suppose
that it is by a return to some primitive differentiation or
other.

这些女人因此是罕见的。但是你们应该清楚地理解我讲那句话的意思：这样的男人甚至更加罕见。如同奥拉尼尔女士告诉我们，关于爱情的欢爽是什么，当我们一劳永逸地拒绝这个著名的指称，“结合”的这个指称。它应该提醒我们，因为我们曾经给予相当过时的意义，给予“结合”这个术语。你们无法同时地要求，就是我们到达的这个过程的结束时，在被要求做为独特性的特质的时刻。而同时又认为，这是凭借回转到某个原始的差异。

In short, I will not reread her text because I do not
have the time, but on the whole I do not think it would be
unprofitable for this text, to which I am certainly far from
giving a mark of 100 percent, I mean of considering as a perfect
discourse, to be considered rather as a discourse defining a rung
starting from which we could situate the progress to which we
could refer ourselves, to something which was touched on or in
any case perfectly grasped, caught, circumscribed, understood by
Mme Aulagnier.

总之，我将不会重新阅读她的文本，因为我也没有那个时间。但是大体上，我并不认为对于这个文本，那将是无利可图。我确实没有要给予它百分之一百的分数。我指的是，我没有认为它是一个完美的辞说。相反地，它应该被认为是定义阶梯的辞说。从这个阶梯开始，我们能够定位这个进展，我们自己能够参与的进展。提到某件被探讨的东西，或是完美地被奥拉尼尔女士掌握，被捕捉，被描述，被理解的东西。

Of course, I am not saying that she is giving us her last word
here, I would even say more: on several occasions she indicates
the points where it would seem necessary to her to advance to
complete what she is saying and of course a great part of my
satisfaction comes from the points that she indicates. They are
precisely the very ones which could be turned round, as I might

当然，我并不是说，她将在此给予我们最后的论断。我甚至要说：在好几个场合，她指出这几点。在那里，她似乎有必要前进来完成她正在说的东西。当然，我大部分的满意来自于她指示的这几点。它们确实是能够被翻转的几点。

She designates these two points in connection with the
relationship of the psychotic to his own body on the one hand –
she said that she had many things to say, she indicated a little
bit of it to us – and on the other hand in connection with the
phantasy where the obscurity in which she left it would appear to
me sufficiently indicative of the fact that this darkness is
rather general in groups. This is one point.

她指们这两点，一方面，关于精神病跟他自己的身体的关系—她说，她拥有很多话要说。她跟我们稍微指出一些。在另一方面，关于幻想，我觉得，她将它留置于模糊当中。这个模糊充分地指示这个事实：这个黑暗在团体里是相当普遍的。这是一点。

2.5.62 XVIII 242

The second point that I find very remarkable in what she
contributed to us, is what she contributed when she spoke to us
about the perverse relationship. Not of course that I subscribe
at every point to what she said on this subject, which is really
of an unbelievable daring.

在她贡献给予我们的内容，我发现值得注意到第二点是，她所贡献的东西，当她跟我们谈论关于这个倒错的关系。当然，倒不是我每一点都同意她所说的东西，关于这个主题。那确实是匪夷所思地大胆。

It is to congratulate her highly for
having been in a position, even if it is a step to be rectified,
to do it all the same; to describe this step as I should, I would
say that it is the first time, not simply in my circle – and I am
delighted that someone has preceded me in this – that something
has come to the fore, a certain fashion, a certain tone in
speaking about the perverse relationship which suggests to us the
idea which is properly speaking the one that has prevented me
(24) from speaking about it up to now because I do not want to
appear to be the one who says: everything that has been done up
to the present isn’t worth buttons.

那是要高度地恭贺她，因为她曾经处于这个立场，即使这是应该被改进的一个步骤，她仍然有立场可以这样做。描述这个步骤，如同我应该描述的。我将说，这是第一次，不仅是在我的圈子里，我很高兴，某个人在我之前发现，某件东西已经呈现出来，以某种的方式，某种的语调，当她谈论倒错的关系。这个倒错的关系跟我们暗示这个观念。贴切地说，这个观念曾经阻碍我迄今无法谈了它，因为我并不想要成为这样说的人：迄今所被谈论的东西都一文不值。

But Mme Aulagnier, who has
not the same reasons for modesty as I have, and moreover who says
it in all innocence, I mean who has seen perverts and who has
interested herself in them in a truly analytic fashion, begins to
articulate something which, from the very fact of being able to
present under this general form, I repeat, an unbelievably
audacious one that the pervert is someone who makes himself
object for the jouissance of a phallus whose ownership
(appartenance) he does not suspect: he is the instrument of the
jouissance of a god.

但是奥拉尼尔女士并没有跟我相同的理由，要如此谦虚。而且，她非常纯真地说出它。我的意思是，她曾经看见过倒错，她对倒错者非常感到興趣，以非常精神分析的方式。她开始表达某件东西，根据这个事实，她能够呈现它，在这个普遍的形式之下。我重复一下，这个东西是匪夷所思地大胆：倒错者是某个将他自己当著是阳具的欢爽的客体的这个人。倒错者并没有怀疑他拥有阳具：他是某个神的欢爽的工具。

That means when all is said and done, that
this deserves some sharpening, some rectification by directive
maneouvres and, in a word, that this poses the question of
reintegrating what we call the phallus, that this poses the
urgency of the definition of phallus – there is no doubt about it
– since that surely has the effect of telling us that if a
diagnosis of perverse structure ought, for us analysts, to have a
meaning, we must begin by throwing out the window everything that
was written from Kraft-Ebing to Havelock Ellis and everything
that has been written in any supposedly clinical catalogue
whatsoever of the perversions. In short, there is to be overcome

那意味着，当一切被说被做了，这个工具应该稍微磨得更加锐利，凭借指导的运作稍微修正。总之，这形成这个问题，将我们所谓的阳具的东西重新融合。这形成定义阳具的这个迫切性—关于它，这是无可置疑的。因为这确实是具有这个影响，告诉我们，假如倒错症的结构的一个诊断，就我们精神分析家而言，应该具有一个意义，我们必须开始，将每样曾经被写过的东西抛出窗外，自从克拉特-阿宾到哈比勒克，每样被写过的东西，有关倒错症的被认为是临床的目录的东西。总之，这应该被克服。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 27

From an other to the Other 27
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

4.12.68 IV 10
Since Sinai came out there in connection with the truth that speaks “I”,
it was Sinai that came out of me! But I had already thought about the
question. I did not think I was going to speak to you about it today.
But in any case since it has happened, let’s go. I think it must be
translated: “I am what I is” {Je suis ce que je est). That is why Sinai
slipped out of me like that. It is to illustrate for you what I intend to
question around what is involved in the ‘I’, in so far as the truth speaks
‘I’.

因为西奈在那里出现，跟言说“我”的真理有关联，那是从我身上出来到西奈！但是我已经思考的这个问题。我并不认为今天我将要跟你们言说关于它。但是无论如何，因为它已经发生，就让我们进行吧。我认为它必须被翻译为：「我的生命实存就是作为“我”的生命实存。那就是为什么西奈一词会从我身上脱口而出。那是要跟你们说明我打算质疑什么，环绕在这个“我”牵涉的问题。因为真理言说“我”。

Naturally the rumour will spread in Paris, in the little cafes where
all the gossip takes place that, like Pascal, I have chosen the God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. Let the souls from whatever quarter
they are carried to welcome this news, put their emotion back in the
drawer, the truth speaks “I” but the reciprocal is not true. Not
everything that says “I” is the truth, without that where would we be?
This does not mean that these remarks are completely superfluous.

当然，这个谣言在巴黎传开来。在小咖啡店那里，所有的八卦闲言发生。就像巴斯卡，我已经选择亚伯拉罕的上帝，以撒的上帝，雅柯伯的上帝。无论这些灵魂从哪个地区被带出来欢迎这个消息，将他们的情感放回抽屉里，真理言说“我”，但是这个互相往来并不真实。并不是每个言说“我”的东西都是真理。假如没有真理，我们的立场将是哪里？这并不意味着，这些谈论完全是多余的。

Because you should clearly understand that in putting in question the
function of the Other, and on the principle of its very topology, what I
am disturbing -it is not too great a pretension, it is really the question
on the agenda – is properly what Pascal called the God of the
(54) philosophers. Now to put that in question is not nothing! Because
all the same, up to the present, he has had a hard life. And in the way
that earlier I made an allusion to, he remains all the same quite present
in a whole load of modes of transmission of this knowledge when I tell
you that it is not at all subverted, even and much more, by putting in
question this Other who is supposed to be able to totalise it. This is the
sense of what I contributed the last time.

因为你们应该清楚地理解，当我质疑大他者的这个功能，根据它的拓扑图形的原则，我正在扰乱的东西—这并不是一个过分强烈的伪装。那确实是探讨议程的问题。那确实是巴斯卡所谓的哲学家的上帝。现在，质疑这个问题并非没有意义！因为迄今始终是，他一直过着艰困的生活。早先，以我提到的方式，他仍然一直出现在这个知识点传递的完整的模式里。当我告诉你们，它根本就没有被颠覆，尤有甚者，凭借质疑这位大他者根本没有颠覆它。这位大他者被认为能够将它作为整体。这就是我上次贡献的东西的意义。

On the other hand, whether he told the truth or not, the other God that
we should pay homage to our Pascal for having seen that he has strictly
nothing to do with the other, the one who says “I am what I is”. That
this should have been said had some consequences. And I do not see
why, even without seeing in it the slightest chance of truth, we should
not enlighten ourselves from some of its consequences in order to
know what is involved in the truth in so far as it speaks “I”.

在另一方面，无论他说出真理与否，大他者的上帝，我们应该对我们的巴斯卡表示敬意，因为他已经看出，他跟这位大他者根本没有任何关系。这位说「我的生命实存就是”我“的生命实存。」的这位大他者。这句话本来应该被说出的这个事实具有相当结果。我并不明白为什么我们不让自己从这些结果获得启蒙，即使没有在它里面看出真理存在的些微可能，为了要知道在这个真理里牵涉到什么，因为它言说这个”我“。

An interesting little thing, for example, is to notice that because the
/truth speaks “I” and because the response is given to it in our
interpretation, for us psychoanalysts, it is an occasion for noting that
interpretation is not simply our privilege. It is something I already
spoke about at one time under the title of Desire and its interpretation.
I pointed out that in putting the question around the “I” in this way, we
ought, even if only to take a warning or indeed umbrage from it, to
perceive that from then on, interpretation ought to be better
circumscribed. Because prophetism is nothing else. To speak “I” in a
certain furrow which is not that of our suffering is also interpretatioa

譬如，一件有趣的小事情，就是注意到，因为真理言说“我“，因为回应被给予它，在我们的诠释里，对我们精神分析家，这个一个白费力气的场合，诠释并不仅是我们的特权。这是某件我有一次已经谈论过的事情，标题是「欲望与其诠释」。我指出，当我以这个方式提出这个问题，环绕这个”我“，我们应该感觉到，即使是採取警告或确实是因它而受到冒犯，从那时开始，诠释应该要更加恰如其分地被限制。因为预言主义就是这个东西。言说”我“，在某个范围里，并不是我们的痛苦的范围，那也是诠释。

The destiny of the Other is suspended then, I would not say at the
question, I would not say at my question, at the question posed by
psychoanalytic experience. The drama is that whatever may be the fate
this putting in question reserves for it, what the same experience
demonstrates, is that it is from the desire of the Other that I am (je suis)
– in the two marvellously homonymic senses of these two words in
French – that I follow (je suis) the trace. It is moreover precisely for
that reason that I am interested in the destiny of the Other.

大他者的命运在那里被悬置。我将不针对这个问题言说，我将把针对我的问题言说，针对精神分析的经验所形成的问题言说。这个戏剧就是，无论这个命运是什么，这个质疑替它保留相同的经验展示的东西，那就是，从大他者的欲望，我具有生命实存。在这两个同音异意的意义，在法语的这两个字词。我追寻这个痕迹。而且，确实就是因为这个理由，我对于大他者的命运感到興趣。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Identification 209

Identification 209
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII 239
Before trying to examine the place of this discourse I would like
some of the people whom I saw with different interrogative,
expectant expressions, expressions which became more precise at
one or other turning point of Mme Aulagnier’s discourse, to
simply indicate the suggestions, the thoughts produced in them at
one or other detour of this discourse as a sign that this
discourse has been heard. I only regret one thing: it was read.
This will provide me with supports on which I will be able to
accentuate my commentary more precisely.

在我尝试检查这个辞说的位置，我想要我看见的某些人们，仅是指出这些暗示。因为他们具有不同的质疑，期待的表达，变得更加准确的表达，在奥拉尼尔女士的某个转捩点。我想要他们指示这些思想，他们身上产生的思想，在辞说的某个迂回，作为是这个辞说已经被人听见的讯号。我仅是遗憾一件事情：这个辞说被阅读。这将供应我一些支持，我将能够更加准确地强调我的评论。

M Audouard
奥道德先生

What struck me by way of association, is really the clinical
example that you brought in at the end of your presentation, it
is this sentence of the patient about the word which he compares
to a wheel which different people never see the same part of.
This seems to me to illuminate everything that you said and to
open up – I really don’t know why – a whole broadening of the
themes that you have presented.

自由联想给我印象深刻的，确实是这个临床的例子。在你的演讲结束时带给我们的例子。就是病人将这个字词比喻为轮子的这个句子，不同的人们从来没看见的轮子的相同部分。我觉得这启示你们所说的某件事情，并且打开—我确实并不知道为什么—并且打开你们呈现的各种主题的扩充。

I think I have more or less understood the meaning of the
presentation; I am not used to schizophrenics, but as regards
neurotics and perverts anxiety in so far as it cannot be the
object of symbolisation because it is precisely the mark that
symbolisation has not been able to take place and to symbolise
oneself is really to disappear into a sort of non-symbolisation
from which the summons of anxiety comes at every instant.

我认为我已经相当理解呈现的意义。我并没有习惯于精神分裂，但是关于神经症与倒错症的焦虑，因为它不可能成象征的客体，因为确实就是这个记号，成为象征始终不能够发生。让自己成为象征确实就是消失进入一种非-象征。从这个非象征，焦虑的召唤随时都会来到。

It is obviously something extremely rich but which perhaps on a certain
logical plane would demand some clarifications. How in fact is
it possible that this fundamental experience which is in a way
the negativism of the word should come to be symbolised and what
happens then in order that from this central hole there should
spring forth something that we have to understand. Indeed how is
the word born? What is the origin of the signifier in this
precise case of anxiety in so far as it cannot express itself.
For anxiety in so far as it expresses itself? There is perhaps
there a movement which is not unrelated with this wheel which
turns, which would perhaps need to be made a little clearer and
more precise.

这显而易见是件极端的事情，但是或许在某个逻辑的层面，会要求某些的澄清。事实上，这如何是可能的？这个基本的经验，某方面是文字的否定，竟然逐渐成为象征。那么要发生怎样的事情，才有我们必须理解的某件东西，从这个中央的空洞突然冒出来。的确，这个文字如何诞生？在焦虑的这个准确的情况，这个能指的起源是什么？因为它无法表达它自己。当能指表达它自己时，对于焦虑，那是什么？或许在那里，有某个运动，跟这个转动的轮子并非不相关。这个运动或许需要被表达得更加清楚与更加准确。

2.5.62 XVIII 240

M Vergotte
维格特先生
I was wondering if there were not two sorts of anxiety: Mme
Aulagnier spoke of castration-anxiety: the subject is afraid that
it’s going to be taken away from him and that he will be
forgotten as a subject, here is the disappearance of the subject
as such; but I was wondering if there were not an anxiety where
the subject refuses to be subject, if for example in certain
phantasies he wants on the contrary to hide the hole or the lack.
In Mme Aulagnier’s clinical example the subject refuses his body
because the body reminds him of his desire and his lack; in the
example of castration anxiety you said rather: the subject is
afraid that he will be misrecognised as subject. An anxiety has
therefore the two possible meanings: or he refuses to be subject.
There is also the other anxiety where he has, for example in
claustrophobia, that there he is no longer a subject, that on the
contrary he is closed in, that he is in a closed world where
desire does not exist; he can be in a state of anxiety before his
desire and also before the absence of desire.

我想要知道是否存在着两种焦虑。奥拉尼尔女士谈论到阉割-焦虑：主体害怕阉割-焦虑将会从她身上被夺走，他将会被忘记作为主体。在此就是主体自身的消失。但是我想要知道，是否有某种焦虑，在那里，主体拒绝成为主体。譬如，假如在某些的幻影里，他相反地想要隐藏这个空洞或这个欠缺。在奥拉尼尔女士的临床的例子，主体拒绝他的身体，因为身体让他想起他的欲望与他的欠缺。在阉割焦虑的例子，相反地，你说：主体害怕他将会被误认作为主体。焦虑因此拥有两个可能的意义：一种就是，他拒绝成为主体。也还有另外一种焦虑，在那里，譬如在幽闭恐惧症，他不再是主体。相反地，他被封闭在里面，他处于封闭的世界，在那里，欲望并不存在。他能够处于焦虑的状态，在他的欲望之前，也在他的欲望的缺席之前。

Aulagnier
奥拉尼尔女士

Do you not think that when one refuses to be a subject it is
precisely because one has the impression that for the Other one
cannot be subject except by paying for it with ones castration, I
do not believe that the refusal to be subject is to be really a
subject.

你们难道不认为，当我们拒绝成为主体时，那确实是因为我们拥有这个印象：对于大他者，我们无法成为主体，除了凭借用我们自己的阉割付给它代价。我并不相信，拒绝成为主体，将确实成为一个主体。

Lacan
拉康

We are right at the heart of the problem. You see immediately
here the point at which one becomes confused. I find that this
discourse is excellent in so far as the handling of certain of
the notions that we find here has allowed Mme Aulagnier to
highlight, in a fashion which would not have been possible for
her otherwise, several dimensions of her experience. I am going
to take up again something that appeared remarkable to me in what
she produced. I say right away that this discourse seemed to me
to remain at a half-way point.

我们正处于这个难题的核心。你们在此立即看出这个点。我们变成混乱的这个点。我发现，这个辞说非常优秀，因为我们在此发现的一些观念的处理，让奥拉尼尔女士能够强调，否则她本来无法使用这样的方式，凭借她的经验的好几个维度。我正要再次探讨某件对我而言是似乎引人注目的东西，在她所产生的东西里。我立即说，我觉得这个辞说始终保持着半途的点。

It is indeed a sort of
conversion, you should have no doubt about it, that I am trying
to obtain from you through my teaching, which is not, God knows,
after all such a unique pretention in history that for it to be
seen as exorbitant. But it is certain that a whole part of Mme
Aulagnier’s discourse and very precisely the passage at which,
with an eye to intelligibility, her own as well as that of those
to whom she was speaking, to whom she believed she was speaking,
she goes back to formulae which are the ones against which I warn
you, I direct you, I put you on your guard, and not simply
because in my case it is a sort of tic or aversion, but because
their coherence with something which must be radically abandoned
(22) always shows itself every time they are used, even
knowingly.

这确实是一种转变。你们对它应该无可置疑。我正在尝试通过我的教学，从你们那里获得，天晓得，我的教学毕竟并不是在历史上如此独特的伪装，为了让它被看待作为是不可思议。但是确定的是，奥拉尼尔女士的辞说的整个的部分，确实地，就在这个段落，为了让人理解，她自己的辞说，以及她针对的那些人们的辞说，她相信她针对他们言说的那些人们。她回到那个公式，我警告过你们小心那个公式。我引导你们。我要你们小心提防。不仅因为在我的情况，那是一种痛痒，或厌恶。而是因为它们跟某件一定要被扬弃的东西的一贯性。这个一贯性总是显示它自己，每当它们被使用时，即使是明知故犯。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 26

From an other to the Other 26
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
4.12.68

A sensitivity that is evoked already, my God, towards remarks like the
ones I made one day before an honourable member of the Academy of
Sciences of the USSR, that cosmonaut appears to me to be a bad name.
Because in truth, nothing appeared to me less cosmic than the
trajectory that was his support.

已经被召唤的明理，我的天，朝向这些谈论，有一天我所做的谈论，在苏联的科学院的一位荣誉成员面前。我觉得「宇宙人」一词似乎是不好的名称。因为事实上，我觉得，他所支持的太空船的投射，一点儿也不“宇宙”。

A kind of disturbance, of agitation for
such a gratuitous remark, my God, the properly speaking rash
resistance, that it is not sure, after all — that is what I meant to say –
that anything whatsoever, whether you call it God in the sense of the
Other, or Nature — it is not the same thing — but it is indeed to one of
these two aspects that there must be reserved, attributed a prior
knowledge of the Newtonian law for people to have been able properly
speaking to talk about cosmos and cosmonaut. This is where one
senses the amount of metaphysical ontology that continues to find
shelter even in the most unexpected places.

如此无缘无故的谈论引起的某种困扰，某种骚动，我的天，贴切地说，是鲁莽的抗拒，毕竟这是不确定度—那是我想要说的东西—无论你称之为上帝，是大他者或自然—这并不是相同的事情。但是它必须保留给这两个层面的其中一个—将牛顿法则的先前知识归属于其中一个。这样，人们才能够恰如其分地谈论“宇宙”与“宇宙人”。这就是我们理解众多形上学的本体论的地方。这个形上学的本体论继续找到庇护，即使在最出乎意料之外的地方。

(52) What is important for us is what justifies the rule that sets up
psychoanalytic practice, quite stupidly, the one described as free
association. Free means nothing other than dismissing (congediant)
the subject.

对于我们，重要的是建立精神分析实践的规章能够自言其说的东西。相当愚昧地，就是被描述作为“自由联想”的这个规则。“自由”意味着实实在在就是“排斥”。

To dismiss the subject is an operation, an operation that
does not necessarily succeed; it is not always enough to tell somebody
to quit for him to go. What justifies this rule is that the truth, precisely,
is not said by a subject but is suffered. Let us pinpoint here what we
will call phenomenological infatuation. I already picked out one of
these tiny monuments that are displayed in a field where statements
easily take on a patent of ignorance. Essence de la manifestation, is
the title of a book very well received in the university field, and after
/all I have no reason to give the author because I am in the process of
qualifying him as a conceited ass.

“排斥主体”是一个运作，未必会成功的运作。为了让他继续下去，仅是告诉某个人要离开是不足够的。这个规则能够自言其说的理由是，真理确实并不是被主体所说，而是被主体遭受痛苦。让我们在此强调，我们所谓的现象学的迷恋。我已经挑选出其中一篇有关这些小小的纪念碑。它们被展示在陈述很容易具有无知的专利的领域。“展示的本质”就是一本书的书名。这本书在大学的领域很受欢迎。毕竟，我没有理由讲出这位作者，因为我正在将他的品质定位是“自负的驴子”。

The essence of his own
manifestation., in any case, from this title as well as the power with
which at a particular page there is articulated that there is one thing
given to us as certain, it is that suffering, for its part, is nothing other
than suffering. I know, in effect, this always does something to you
when you are told that!

他自己的展示的本质，无论如何，根据这个标题以及这个力量，在特殊的一页，这个力量被表达。有一个东西被给予我们作为是确定的，那就是，就痛苦的本身，那实实在在就是痛苦。我知道，实际上，对于你们，这总是有点帮助，当你们被这样告诉！

It is enough to have a toothache and never to
have read Freud to find that rather convincing. Here after all is why
one may think incidentally — but there truly I think that I am also a
little traditional – why one may give thanks for such blunders (pas de
clercs), make no mistake, to call them that, to promote, as one might
say, what is not to be said, for one to clearly mark the difference to
what there has to truly be said. It is a little bit too much of a
justification to give to error and that is why I am signalling in passing
that in saying this, I do not completely adhere to it. But for that, my
God, I would have to re-establish what is involved in an apologia for
sophists, and God knows where that would lead us.

要发现痛苦实实在在就是痛苦令人信服，光是牙齿疼痛就足够了，不必曾经阅读弗洛伊德。毕竟，这就是为什么我们意外地想到—但是确实地，我认为我也有点传统—为什么我们要给予感谢，对于这些谬误，没错，就是这样称呼它们。不妨说，为了提升不应该被说出的东西，为了让人清楚地标示这个差异，跟确实必须被说出的东西。这未免有点小题大作，仅是为了证明错误。那就是为什么我偶然地提到，当我这样说时，我并没有完全坚持它。假如不是那样，我的天，我本来没有必要重新证实所被牵涉到东西，在为诡辩者作辩解。天晓得，那会引导我们到哪里。

In any case, the difference is the following. If what we are doing, we
analysts, works, it is precisely because suffering is not suffering and to
say what should be said one should say: “Suffering is a fact”. This
seems to be saying almost the same thing, but it is not at all the same,
at least if you have well understood what I told you earlier about what
a fact is. Rather let us be more modest; there is some suffering that is a
fact, namely, that conceals an assertion. It is through this ambiguity
that we refute that it is unsurpassable in its manifestation, that suffering
can be a symptom, which means truth. I make the suffering speak, as I
made the truth speak in a first approach – the effects of discourse must
be tempered — I made them say, although in terms not modulated in the
same tone for the one and the other, I speak. I am recalling it since I
came back to it recently.

无论如何，这个差异如下： 假如我们正在做的事情行得通，我们精神分析家，那确实是因为痛苦并不是痛苦。为了说出应该被说出的事情，我们应该说：「痛苦是一个事实。」这似乎是大同小异，但是它根本并不是相同。至少当你清楚地理解到，我早先告诉你们的东西，关于事实是什么。相反地，让我们更加谦虚些。有某些的痛苦是事实。换句话说，某些的痛苦隐藏一个主张。通过这个暧昧，我们反驳，在痛苦的展示里，痛苦是无法克服的。痛苦有时是个症状，它意味着真理。我让痛苦言说，如同我让真理言说，在第一次探讨时。辞说的影响必须被缓和下来。我让它们言说。虽然用的术语调节的语调，跟前者与后者并不相同。“我言说”。我正在提醒它，因为我最近回头谈论它。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
4.12.68

Let us try to be more rigorous as we advance. Suffering has its
language and it is quite unfortunate that anybody at all can say it
without knowing what he is saying. But, in any case, that is precisely
(53) the trouble with all discourse. It is from the moment that it is
rigorously stated, since true discourse is a discourse without words, as
I wrote this year as a frontispiece, anyone could repeat it after what I
have said to you. It no longer has any consequences. This is one of
the risky aspects of the situation. Let us then leave suffering to one
side and, as regards the truth, let us specify what we are going to have
to focus on subsequently.

随着我们进展，让我们尝试更加严谨些。痛苦具有它的语言。相当不幸的是，任何人都能够说出痛苦，却不知道他正在说些什么。但是，无论如何，那确实是一切辞说的麻烦。从那时刻起，辞说就严谨地被陈述，因为真理的辞说是一个没有文字的辞说。如同我去年书写的，作为是书的封面。任何都可以将我跟你们说过的话重复一遍。它不再具有任何的重要性。这就是这个情境的危险的一个层面。让我们因此将痛苦放在一边。关于真理，让我们指明我们将要拥有的东西，为了随后专注于它。

The truth, for its part, essentially speaks. It speaks “I” and you see
defined there two extreme fields, the one in which the subject is only
located by being the effect of the signifier, the one in which there is the
pathos of the signifier without any mooring point yet being made in
our discourse to the subject, the field of fact, and then what finally
interests us and what was not even touched on anywhere but on Sinai,
namely, what speaks “I”. On Sinai – 1 apologise, that just slipped out –
I did not want to rush on to Sinai but since it has come out I have to
justify why.

真理就它自身而言，基本上是会言说。真理言说“我”。然后你们看见有两个极端的领域被定义出来。在其中一个定义，主体仅是被定位作为是能指的影响。在另外一个定义。没有任何锚定点的能指的悲情，被表达在我们对于主体的辞说，事实的领域。然若，最后我们感到興趣的东西，以及以前甚至没有被讨论到的东西，除了在西奈。也就是说，是什么言说“我”。在西奈，我抱歉，脱口而出。我并不想要匆促谈论西奈，因为我必须要提出我自圆其说的东西。

Some time ago, just around this little flaw in my
discourse called The name o f the father and which remains gaping
wide, I had begun to question the translation of a certain — I do not
pronounce Hebrew well – “Haye”. I think that this is pronounced
“Hacher Haye”, what the metaphysicians, the Greek thinkers translated
by “I am the one who is”. Naturally they had to have being. Only that
does not mean that. There are middle terms, I am talking about people
who say: “I am who am”. That means nothing; it has the blessing of
Rome. I pointed out, I believe that it should be understood as ‘1 am
what I am”. In effect, this has all the same the value of a punch in the
face. You asked me my name, I answer “I am what I am and go and
screw yourself’. This indeed is what the Jewish people have been
doing ever since that time.

不久之前，就在环绕我的“父亲之名”的辞说有点瑕疵，这个瑕疵裂开很宽，我开始质疑“Have”的这个翻译—我希伯来语发音不准确—我认为它被发音为“Hacher Haye” 。形上学家，希腊的思想家将它翻译为“我是具有生命实存的这个人“。当然，他们必须要具有生命实存。只是那并不是那个意思。有些中间的术语，我正在谈论人们说：”我就是具有生命实存的人“。那并不意味着什么，它拥有罗马的幸福。我指出来，我相信，它应该被理解作为”我是具有生命实存的人“。实际上，这仍然具有表面上双关语的价值。你们询问我我的名字，我回答说”我是具有生命实存的人，然后你们自求多福吧。那确实是自从那个时刻以来，犹太人们一直正在做的事情。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Identification 208

Identification 208
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII 238

Here too one can see that anxiety appears at the moment when
desire makes of the subject something which is a lack of being, a
failure to name oneself.

在此，我们也能够看见，焦虑出现，当欲望将某件生命实存的欠缺的东西，作为主体的时刻，这是一种无法命名自己的失败。

I have not spoken of phantasy which is intimately related to both
identification and to anxiety. I could have said that anxiety
appears at the moment when the real object can only be grasped in
its phantasmatic meaning, that it is from this moment, since all
possible identification of the ego has dissolved that anxiety
appears.

我还没有谈论到跟认同与焦虑两者息息相关的幻见。我本来能够说，仅有在真实的客体的幻影的意义里，真实的客体能够被理解的时刻，焦虑才会出现。就是从这个时刻开始，因为所有可能的自我的认同已经瓦解时，焦虑才出现。

I will end with a short case history in order to give you a
clinical example of the sources of anxiety in the psychotic. I
will not go into detail except to say that this is a
schizophrenic suffering from delusions who has been frequently
hospitalized. The first sessions were given over to an account
of his delusions, a fairly classic one which he called the
problem of the robot man.

我将用一个简短的个案历史作为结束，为了给予你们一个临床的例子，对于精神病的焦虑的来源。我将不探讨细节，除了就是说，这是一个精神分裂症，遭受幻觉的痛苦。他经常被送到医院里。前几个看诊专注于描绘他的幻觉。这是一个非常经典的例子，他称之为机器人的难题。

Then in one session where by chance
communication with others and the word were being discussed he
explained that what he cannot bear is “the form of the demand”,
that “the handshake is an improvement on civilizations which use
verbal salutations, because the word falsifies things, blocks
understanding. The word is like a turning wheel – everyone sees
a different part at different moments so communication is always
false; there is always a dialogue”.

因此在一次的看诊里，凭借偶然的跟别人沟通与当时正在被讨论的语词，他解释，他无法忍受的东西是”要求的形式“，「握手是文明的改进语词招呼的使用，因为语词会让事情变得虚假，阻碍理解。语词就像是一个旋转的轮子—每个人在不同的时刻看见不同的部分。所以，沟通总是虚假的，总是有对话存在。

In this same session at the moment when he broaches the problem
of the woman’s word he suddenly says: “what disquiets me is what
they say about amputees, that they can feel things with the limb
they no longer have:” at this moment this man whose speech even
in his delusion is extremely precise, begins to fumble, to search
for words and finally comes out with this: “a ghost would be a
man without limbs and without a body who by his intelligence
alone could recognise a false sensation in a body he doesn’t
have. This makes me very uneasy.”

在这个同一次的看诊，当他提出这个女人的话语的难题的时刻，他突然说：「让我感觉不安的是，他们谈论到切除，他们用他们不再拥有的这个肢体感觉事物」。在这个时刻，即使在他的幻觉里，他的言说仍然极端准确的这个人，他开始喃喃而语，寻找语词，最后终于讲出这个：「鬼魂就是没有肢体，没有身体的人。这个人光是凭借他的智慧就能够体认出身体的虚假的感觉，虽然他没有拥有身体。这让我感觉不安。」

“Would recognise a false sensation in a body he doesn’t have”.
This phrase took on its meaning in the following session when he
announced that he wanted to stop, that the treatment was
unhealthy and dangerous. What was unhealthy and dangerous was
“that I realised you wanted to seduce me and that you could
succeed”. What he realised from these false sensations in a body
he doesn’t have was that he might desire. Then he would have to
recognise, to assume this lack which is his body. He would have
to look at what is unbearable for man if it has not been
symbolised – castration as such.

「他将会体认出身体的虚假的感觉，虽然他没有拥有身体。」这个词句具有意义，在随后的一次看诊，当他宣布，他想要停止，这种治疗是不健康而且危险。不健康而且危险的部分是「我体会到你想要诱拐我，你可能会成功」。从他没有拥有的身体的这些虚假的感觉里，他所体会的东西，就是他要欲望。然后，他将必须承认，假如他的身体的这个欠缺。他将必须观看对于人生无非被忍受的东西。假如它还没有成为象征—阉割的本身。

In this same session he himself expressed better than I could the
source of his anxiety: “you are afraid to look at yourself in a
mirror, you don’t really know what you will see there. It is
better if you buy a gilded mirror.”

在相同的这次看诊，他自己表达得比我更加贴切，关于他的焦虑的来源：「你害怕观看你在镜像里的自己，你并没有确实知道你在那里会看见什么。你最好买一个有美化影像功能的镜子。」

One has the impression that he wants to be sure that the changes
are caused by the mirror.

我们拥有这个印象：他想要确定，这些改变是因为镜子所引起。

As you see anxiety appears at the moment when he fears I may
become an object of desire; from that moment the arousal of his
own desire would imply for him the necessity of taking on board
the fundamental lack which constitutes him.

如同你们看见，焦虑出现，当他害怕我可能会成为欲望的客体的时刻，从他自己的欲望被唤醒的时刻，将会对他暗示着这个必要，接纳组成他的这个基本的欠缺。

From the moment anxiety appears, his position of ghost, as robot
is no longer possible. He risks being no longer able to deny the
false sensations of a body he cannot acknowledge. What causes
his anxiety is the precise moment when faced with the eruption of
his desire he wonders what image of himself the mirror will
reflect back to him; he knows it may be a void, an unnameable#
something, something which will render impossible any neutral
recognition, and which we the involuntary spectators of this
drama call anxiety.

从焦虑出现的时刻开始，他的鬼魂的立场，作为机器人的立场不再是可能。他冒险不再能够否认身体的虚假的感觉，他无法承认的身体。引起他的焦虑的东西是这个准确的时刻，当他面对他的欲望的暴发，他想要知道镜子将会反映回给他怎样的自己的形象。他知道那可能是空无，无法命名的东西，某件将会让任何中立的体认成为不可能的东西，我们作为这个戏剧的非自愿的观众所谓的焦虑的东西。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Identification 207

Identification 207
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII 237

In psychosis things are a little different. Here too anxiety is
nothing other than the signal of the loss of all possible
reference points for the ego. But the source from which this
anxiety arises is indigenous: it is the place from which the
desire of the subject can appear – it is his desire which is the
privileged source of all anxiety for the psychotic.

在精神病，事情稍微不同。在此焦虑也实实在在就是自我的各种可能指称点的丧失。但是从这个来源产生的焦虑是本质的。就是从这个地方，主体的欲望会出现—对于精神病者，主体的欲望就是各种焦虑的特权的来源。

If it is true that it is the Other who constitutes us by
recognising us as object of desire, if the response of the Other
makes us realise the gap which exists between demand and desire
and if it is through this gap that we enter into the world of
signifiers, then for the psychotic the Other is the one who has
never signified anything other than a hole, a void at the very
centre of his being. The interdiction regarding desire which he
has experienced means that his response has caused him to
register not a gap but a fundamental antimony between demand and
desire. From this gap which is not just a gap but a gaping pit
what appears is not the signifier but the phantasy, that which
causes the telescoping of the symbolic and the real which we call
psychosis.

假如确实是大他者组成我们自己，凭借体认我们作为欲望的客体，假如大他者的回应让我们体认这个差距，存在于要求与欲望之间的差距，假如通过这个差距，我们进入能指的这个世界，那么，对于精神病者，大他者就是从来没有让任何东西成为能指，除了就是空洞，处于他的生命实存的中心的空洞。他曾经经验到底关于欲望的这个指令，意味着，他的回应引起他铭记，不是铭记这个差距，而是铭记一个基本的对立，存在于要求与欲望之间的对立。从这个差距，这个差距并不仅是一个差距，而是裂开的坑，所出现的东西并不是能指，而是幻影。这个幻影引起象征界与实在界的望远镜观照，我们称之为精神病。

For the psychotic – if I can put it simply – the Other is
introjected at the level of his own body, at the level of
everything which surrounds the primordial absence which is the
only thing which designates him as subject.

对于精神病者—假如我能仅是表达它—大他者被内部投射，在他自己的身体的层次，在一切环绕这个原初的缺席的东西的层次。这个原初的缺席就是指明他作为主体的唯一的东西。

For him anxiety is linked to specific moments where out of this
hole something appears which can be called desire: because in
order to assume this desire the subject must situate himself in
the only place from which he can say “I” – in other words must
identify with this hole which because of the interdiction of the
Other is the only place where he can be recognised as subject.
Every desire can only throw him back on either a negation of
himself or an negation of the Other.

对于他，焦虑跟那些明确的时刻连接一块。在那些明确的时刻，某件能够被称为欲望的东西出现，从这个空洞。因为为了担负起这个欲望，主体必须定位他自己，在这个唯一的地方。从这个地方，他能够说“我”。换句话说，他必须认同这个空洞，因为大他者的指令，这个空洞是唯一的地方，他能够被体认作为主体。每个欲望仅能够将他抛回，要就是对于他自己的否定，要不就是对大他者的否定。

But in so far as the Other is introjected at the level of his own
body it is this introjection alone which allows him to live. All
negation of the Other would be for him a self mutilation which
can only throw him back onto his own fundamental drama.
If our silence helps to reveal the sources of anxiety in the
neurotic, our presence, our word does so with the psychotic.

但是，当大他者被内部投射，在他自己的身体，光就是这个内部投射就让他能够生活。对于大他者的全部否定，对于他，将是一种自我-切除。这个自我-切除仅能够将他抛回进入他自己的基本的戏剧。假如我们的沉默帮助揭露神经症者的焦虑的来源，我们的存在，我们的文字对于精神病者，也是这样的作为。

Everything which causes him to lose awareness of our existence as
separate from him, as autonomous subjects who can recognise him
as subject, releases his anxiety. So long as he talks, he
repeats a monologue which situates us at the level of this
introjected Other which constitutes him, but if he should begin
to talk to us in so far as we as object may become the place
where he must recognise his desire, his anxiety will be released:
because to desire means to constitute oneself as subject and for
him the only place where he can do that is the place which refers
him back to this gaping hole.

引起他丧失知觉我们的存在的每样东西，作为跟他分开，作为是具有自主权的主体。这位主体承认他作为主体，释放他的焦虑。只要他谈话，他重复一个独白。这个独白定位我们在这个组成他的内部投射的大他者。但是假如开始跟我们谈话，因为作为客体的我们，可能成为这个位置，他必须体认他的欲望的位置，他的焦虑将会被释放：因为欲望意味着组成他自己作为主体。对于他，唯一他能这样做的地方，就是让他回到这个裂口的空洞的这个地方。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

癔症研究05

癔症研究05
IV
第四章

THE PSYCHOTHERAPY OF
HYSTERIA 257
癔症的心理治疗

(FREUD)
弗洛伊德

IV. PSYCHOTHERAPY OF HYSTERIA (FREUD) 261

I should not like it to be wrongly thought that I do not wish
to allow that hysteria is an independent neurotic affection,
that I regard it merely as a psychical manifestation of anxiety
neurosis and that I attribute to it ‘ideogenic’ symptoms only
and am transferring the somatic symptoms (such as hystero-
genic points and anaesthesias) to anxiety neurosis. Nothing of
the sort. In my opinion it is possible to deal with hysteria, freed
from any admixture, as something independent; and to do so
in every respect except in that of therapeutics.

我不想要错误地被认为，我并不希望可，癔症是独立的神经症的情感。我仅是将它视为是焦虑神经症的心灵的展示。我仅是将“观念起源”的症状归属于它，我正在将身体的症状（譬如癔症起因点与麻痹），转移成为焦虑神经症。根本就不是这个样子。依照我的意见，处理神经症，作为某件独立的东西，免除任何的混杂，这是可能的。我们可能在每个层面这样做，除了治疗学的层面。

For in therapeutics we are concerned with a practical aim, with getting
rid of the pathological state as a whole. And if hysteria generally
appears as a component of a mixed neurosis, the situation
resembles that in which there is a mixed infection, where pre-
serving life sets a problem which does not coincide with that of
combating the operation of one particular pathogenic agent.

因为在治疗学那里，我们关心的是实际的目标，整体地废除病理的状态。假如癔症通常出现，作为混合神经症的成分，这个情况类似混合感染的情况。在那个情况，保存生命触发一个难题。这个难题并没有符合格斗特殊的病因代理者的运作的难题。

It is very important for me to distinguish the part played by
hysteria in the picture of the mixed neuroses from that played
by neurasthenia, anxiety neurosis and so on, because, once I
have made this distinction, I shall be able to express concisely
the therapeutic value of the cathartic method.

非常重要地，我必须区别癔症扮演的角色，在混合神经症的画面里，跟神经衰弱，焦虑神经症，等等，扮演的角色的差异。因为我一旦从事这个区别，我将能够明确地表达清涤疗法的治疗价值。

For I am inclined to venture the assertion that that method is as a matter of theory very well able to get rid of any hysterical symptom,
whereas, as will be easily understood, it is completely powerless
against the phenomena of neurasthenia and is only able rarely
and in roundabout ways to influence the psychical effects of
anxiety neurosis. Its therapeutic effectiveness in any particular
case will accordingly depend on whether the hysterical com-
ponents of the clinical picture do or do not assume a position
of practical importance in comparison with the other neurotic
components.

因为我倾向于提出这个主张：就理论而言，那个方法完全能够废除癔症的症状。但是，如同轻易就可理解的，要对抗神经衰弱的现象，那个方法完全是无力的。它仅能够勉强地，用迂回的方式，来影响焦虑神经症的心灵的情感，它在任何特殊个案的治疗的效果，因此依靠临床画面的癔症的成分是否具有实用的价值的立场，跟其他的神经症的成分比较起来。

There is another obstacle in the way of the effectiveness of
the cathartic method, which we have already indicated in the
‘Preliminary Communication’ [p. 17]. It cannot affect the
underlying causes of hysteria: thus it cannot prevent fresh
symptoms from taking the place of the ones which had been got
rid of. On the whole, then, I must claim a prominent place
for our therapeutic method as employed within the framework
of a therapy of the neuroses; but I should like to advise against
assessing its value or applying it outside this framework. Since,
however, I cannot in these pages offer a ‘therapy of the neuroses’
of the sort needed by practitioners, what I have just said is
equivalent to postponing my account of the subject to a possible
later publication. But I am able, I think, to add the following
remarks by way of expansion and elucidation.

还有另外一种阻碍，使这个清涤疗法无法产生效果。在“初步沟通”的那个章节，我们已经指示过。它无法影响到癔症的潜在原因。因此，它无法阻止新的症状不取代已经被废除掉的那些症状的位置。因此，大体上，我必须宣称我们的的治疗方法具有优势的地位，因为它被运用在神经症的治疗的架构里面。但是我想要劝告不要在这个架构的外部评估它的价值或应用它。因为，在这几页里，我无法提供执业医师所需要的这种“神经症的治疗”。我刚刚所说的相当等于是拖延我对于这个主题的描述，尽可能晚一点出版。但是我认为我能够补充以下的谈论，作为扩充与诠释。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 25

From an other to the Other 25
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

4.12.68

Now, there is no subject at
the precise point where it interests us, except the subject of an assertion
(dire). If I posit these two references, that to the Real and that to the
assertion, it is to clearly mark that here that you may still vacillate and
pose the question, for example, whether this is not what was always
imagined about the subject. It is moreover also there that you have to
grasp what the term subject states in so far as it is the effect, the
dependent (la dependance) of this assertion.

现在，在我们感到興趣的这个确实时刻，没有主体存在，除了就是主张的主体。假如我提出这两个关联，对于实在界与对于主张，这是要清楚地标示，在此，你们可能依旧摇摆并且提出问题。譬如，是否这是关于主体已前总是被想像的东西。而且，在那里，你们必须理解主体这个术语陈述的东西，因为它是这个效应，这个主张的这个依靠。

There is no subject except
of an assertion, this is what we have to correctly circumscribe in order
never to detach the subject from it.

没有主体存在，除了就是主张的主体。这就是我们必须正确地描述的东西，为了将主体跟它区隔出来。

To say moreover that the Real is the impossible, is also to state that it
is only the most extreme circumscribing of the assertion in so far as it
is the possible that it introduces and not simply that it states. The flaw
remains no doubt, for some people, that this subject would then be, in a
way, a subject taking its worth from this discourse.

而且，说实在界是不可能界，也等于是陈述，实在界仅是最极端的描述这个主张。因为这是它介绍的这个可能界，而不仅是它陈述的这个可能界。对于一些人们，这个瑕疵始终无可置疑。以某种方式，主体将因此是从这个辞说获得的价值。

That it would only
be the deployment, a canker crossing in the middle of the world where
the junction takes place that, all the same, brings this subject to life.
It is not just anything in things that makes a subject. This is where it is
important to take things up again at the point where we do not tip over
into confusion in what we are saying – the confusion that would allow
there to be restored this subject as thinking subject, any pathos
whatsoever — about the signifier, I mean, through the signifier, does not
of itself make a subject of this pathos. What this pathos defines is in
every case, quite simply, what is called a ffat.

这仅是这个运作，在世界中央的蔓延跨越，在汇集发生的世界，它仍然让主体恢复生命。这不仅是事情里的任何东西形成主体。这是再次探讨事情非常重要的地方，在我们没有绊倒进入混乱。这个混乱让主体能够被恢复，作为是思维的主体，任何的情感，关于这个能指。我指的是，通过这个能指，它的本身并没有成为这个情感的主体。在每个情况，这个情感所定义的东西，仅仅就是所谓的事实。

And it is here that there
is situated the distance in which we have to question what our
experience produces. Something different that goes much further than
the being that speaks in so far as it is man that is at stake. More than
one thing can suffer from the effect of the signifier, everything in the
world that does not properly become a fact (fait) unless its signifier is
articulated. Not ever, never, does any subject come unless the fact is
said.

就在这里，这个距离被定位。在这个距离，我们必须询问我们的经验产生的东西。某件不同的但噢乖西，比起言说的这个人更加深入的的东西。因为岌岌可危的是这个人。因为能指的影响而遭受痛苦的不仅是一件事情，在世界上的每件事情，没有被恰如其分地成为一个事实，除非它的能指被表达。除非这个事实被说出，没有主体来临。

Between these two frontiers is where we have to work. What
cannot be said about the feet is designated in the assertion, by its lack,
and that is the truth. That is why the truth always insinuates itself, but
can be inscribed also in a perfectly calculated way where it simply has
its place, between the lines. The substance of the truth is precisely
what suffers from the signifier. That goes very far. What suffers from
it in its nature. Let us say, when I say that this goes very far, this
/ precisely goes very far in nature.

在这两个边界之间，就是我们必须工作的地方。关于这个事实无法被说出的东西，在主张里被指明，被它的欠缺。那就是真理。那就是为什么真理总是嘲讽它自己，但是真理也能够被铭记，以精打细算的方式，它仅是拥有它的方式，这字里行间。真理的物质确实就是因为能指而遭受痛苦的东西。那非常深入。因为能指而遭受痛苦的东西，在它的特性。让我们说，当我说，这非常深入，在特性上，这确实非常深入。

4.12.68
For a long time people seemed to accept what is called the spirit. It is
an idea that got across in some little way. Moreover, nothing ever gets
across as much as people think. In any case it got across a little
because of the feet that it proves that there is never anything else at
stake under the name of spirit than the signifier itself. Which
obviously puts a lot of metaphysics out of sync.

长久以来，人们似乎接受所谓的精神。精神用某方小小方式让人明白。而且，没有一样东西像精神那样如同人们认为地让人明白。无论如何，精神稍微让人明白，因为这个事实：精神证明，从没有任何其他东西岌岌可危，在精神的名称之下，比起这个能指的自身。这显而易见地，同时加上许多的形上学。

As regards the
relationships of our effort to metaphysics, as regards what is involved
in a putting in question that tends not to lose all the benefit of the
(51) experience of metaphysics, something of it remains.

关于我们的努力跟形上学的关系，关于所被牵涉的东西，当提出的问题倾向于不丧失所有的形上学的经验的利益，关于它的某件东西保留着。

Namely, the
following which is indeed in a certain number of points, of areas more
varied and better equipped than one might think at first approach and
of very different qualities, it is a matter of knowing what
‘structuralism’ has to bring about. The question is raised in a
collection that has just appeared, I got the first fruits of it, I do not
know whether it is in circulation: “What is structuralism?” which we
owe to the summons addressed to some people by our friend Francis
Wahl.

换句话说，以下确实某些的点，某些的地区，更加变化，装备更加齐全，比起我们第一次接近可能认为的，并且属于不同的性质。问题是要知道“结构主义”必须导引出什么。这个问题被提出，在刚刚出现的文集。我获得它的最初的成果。我并不知道，这个文件是否发行当中：「结构主义是什么？」我们将这个问题归功于我们的朋友法朗西斯 瓦尔，针对某些人们的召唤。

I advise you not to miss it, it brings a certain number of
questions up to date. But undoubtedly this means that it is rather
important to mark our distinction from metaphysics. In truth, we have,
on this point, marked something that it is not useless to state, that one
must not believe too much in what advertises itself as disillusion. The
disillusion of the spirit is not a complete triumph if elsewhere it
sustains the superstition that would designate in an idealness of matter
this very substance that one first puts into the spirit as impassible.

我劝告你们不要错过它。它带来某些现代的问题。但是无可置疑地，这意味着，非常重要的事情是标示我们更形上学的差异。事实上，我们在这个时刻已经标示某件东西，陈述一下不无用途。我们一定不要过分相信自我广告作为幻梦觉醒的东西。精神的幻梦觉醒并不是完整的胜利，假如别的地方，它维持这个迷信。这个迷信以物质的理想指明这个物质，我们起初放进精神里做为无法通过的东西。

I am calling it superstition because after all we know its genealogy. There
is a tradition, the Jewish tradition curiously, in which one can indeed
highlight what a certain transcendence of matter may be able to sketch
out. What is stated in the scriptures, singularly unnoticed of course,
but quite clear concerning the corporeality of God.

我称它为迷信，因为毕竟我们知道它的系谱学。有一个传统，耐人寻味的犹太的传统。在这个传统里，我们确实能够强调某个超验的物质可能能够描述出来。在圣经里被陈述的东西，当然并没有独特地被注意到，但是非常清楚，关于上帝具有肉身。

These are things
that we cannot develop today. It was a chapter of my seminar on The
name o f the father, which as you know [the sign of a cross in the air] I
have definitively renounced, make no mistake. But in any case, this
superstition described as materialist – one may well add popular, that
changes nothing at all — deserves the share of love that everyone has
for it, because it is indeed what has been most tolerant up to now of
scientific thinking. But you must not believe that this will always last.
It would be enough for scientific thinking to make people suffer a little
in this quarter — and it is not unthinkable — for the tolerance in question
not to last!

今天有些东西，我们无法发展。那是我的研讨班的一个章节，探讨“父亲之名“。你们知道，（空中出现十字架的符号），我已经明确地放弃”父亲之名“，无可置疑地。但是无论如何，这个被描述为物质主义的迷信—我们很有理由增加”普遍流行“，并且没有什么差别—这个迷信应该获得每个人对它的爱好的分享。因为这确实是科学思想迄今一直包容的东西。在这个部分，科学的思想让人们稍微痛苦一些就足够了—这并非不可思议—为了让受到质疑的包容不要延续下去。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Identification 206

Identification 206
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII 236
The psychotic always finds himself forced to alienate either his
body as support of the ego or a body part as support of the
possibility of a Jouissance. If I do not use the term
identification here it is precisely because I do not think it is
applicable in the case of psychosis.

精神病者总是发现他自己被迫异化他的身体，作为自我的支持，要不然就是异化身体的部分，作为欢爽的可能性的支持。假如我在此没有使用“认同”这个术语，那确实是因为我并不认为它可被运用到精神病者的个案。
In my view identification
implies the possibility of a relation to the object where the
desire of the subject and the desire of the Other are in a
conflictual situation but exist as the two constitutive poles of
the relation (to the object). In psychosis the Other and his
desire have to be defined at the level of a phantasmatic relation
of the subject to his own body. I will not go into to this since
it will take us too far from the subject of our discussion which
is anxiety.

依我的观点，认同暗示着跟客体的关系的可能性。在客体那里，主体的欲望与大他者的欲望处于冲突的情境，但是存在作为跟客体的关系的两个形成的极端。在精神病者，大他者与他的欲望必须被定义，在主体跟他自己的身体的幻想魅影的层次。我将不探讨这个，因为它将带领我们远离我们探讨“焦虑”的主体。

Contrary to what may be believed it is of anxiety
that I have been speaking all along. As I said at the beginning
it is not possible to address the subject of anxiety without
taking into account the parameters of identification.

跟大家所认为的恰恰相反，我一直在谈论的东西就是“焦虑”。如同我在开始说的，要处理焦虑的主体，我们不可能不考虑到认同的参数。

What has been seen in all the cases discussed, whether normal
neurotic or perverse, identification can only happen in relation
to what the subject imagines rightly or wrongly to be the desire
of the Other. In the normal, neurotic or perverse subject it is
always a matter of identifying oneself in accordance with or in
opposition to what one thinks is the desire of the Other. As
long as this desire can be imagined, phantasized, the subject
will find there the necessary reference points in order to define
himself, either as the object of the desire of the Other or as an
object refusing to be the desire of the Other. In either case he
will be able to locate himself, to define himself.

在所有被讨论的个案里，已经被看出的东西，无论是正常的神经症者，或倒错症者，仅有在跟主体想像是大他者的欲望的东西有关联时，认同才会发生，无论那个东西正确与否。在正常状态，无论神经症或倒错症的主体，问题总是要认同自己，相符于或对立于我们认为是大他者欲望的东西。只要欲望能够被想像，被形成幻影，主体将会发现那里有必要的指称点，为了定义他自己，要就是，作为大他者的欲望的客体，要不就是作为拒绝成为大他者的欲望的客体。不论哪一种情况，他将能够定位他自己，定义他自己。

But from the moment when the desire becomes something mysterious,
undefinable, the subject discovers that it is precisely this
desire of the Other which constitutes him as subject; what he
will encounter faced with this void is his fundamental phantasy.

但是从欲望成为某件神秘的东西的这个时刻开始，主体发现，确实就是大他者的这个欲望，构成他作为主体。面临这个空无，他遭遇的东西就是他的基本的幻影。

To be the object of the desire of the Other is only bearable in
so far as we can name this desire, can shape it in terms of our
own desire. To become the object of a desire we can no longer
name, is to become oneself an object without a name having lost
all possible identity: to become an object whose insignia no
longer means anything since they have become undecipherable for
the Other.

成为大他者的欲望的客体，仅有当我们能够命名这个欲望，能够用我们自己的欲望的术语来塑造它的形状，成为大他者的欲望的客体，才能够被忍受。成为我们不再能够命名的欲望的客体，就是让自己成为没有名字的客体，丧失所有可能的认同：成为不再具有任何意义的标志的客体，因为它们变成无法被诠释，对于大他者。

This precise moment when the ego is reflected in a
mirror which gives back an image which has no identifiable
meaning – this is anxiety. In calling it oral, anal or phallic
we are simply trying to define which insignia the ego has donned
in order to be recognised.

这个确实的时刻，当自我被反映到镜像里。这个镜像给回一个无法被认同的意义的意象—那就是焦虑。当我们称它为口腔期，肛门期，阳具期，我们仅是尝试定义主体穿戴的是哪一个标志，为了要被体认。

If anxiety is the affect which most
easily provokes a reciprocal response it is because from this
moment we become for the Other the one whose insignia are equally
mysterious, equally inhuman. In anxiety it is not just the ego
which is dissolved, the other also dissolves as support of
identification.

假如焦虑是最容易激发互惠的回应的情感，那是因为从我们成为对于大他者而言是标志同样神秘的这个客体，同样非人类标志的这个客体。在焦虑，不仅是自我被瓦解，大他者也被瓦解作为是认同的支持。

Jouissance and anxiety are the two extreme
positions in which the ego can situate itself: in the first the
ego and the Other for an instant exchange insignia, recognise
each other as two signifiers whose shared Jouissance assures a
momentary identity of desire: in anxiety the ego and the Other
are dissolved, annulled in a situation where desire disappears
because it cannot be named.

欢爽与焦虑是两个极端立场。自我定义它自己在那里。在第一个极端的立场，自我与大他者有一瞬间互相交换标志，互相体认作为两个分享欢爽的能指。这个分享保证欲望的短暂的认同：自我与大他者被瓦解，在欲望消失的情境里被宣告无效，因为它无法被命名。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com