Archive for May, 2015

From an other to the Other 24

May 22, 2015

From an other to the Other 24
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

4.12.68

This is a feature that seems superfluous. It nevertheless seemed to me,
it appeared from then on that this laughter is properly something that
refers to what at that very moment Marx is unveiling, namely, what is
involved in the essence of this surplus value. “My good apostle , he
says to him, “keep talking. The service as you understand it, if you
wish, of putting the means that you find you have at the disposition of
(49) the one who can work. But what is at stake, is that this labour,
this labour that you are going to pay for, that he can fabricate with this
lathe and milling machine, you will not pay him any more for it than
for what he was doing with his jointer that I evoked earlier. Namely,
what he would have been able to guarantee by means of this jointer,
namely, his subsistence.“

这似乎是多余的特征。可是,我觉得从那时开始,这个笑声恰当而言似乎就是某件提到在当时马克思揭露的东西。也就是说,这个剩余价值的本质牵涉的东西。「我的善良的使徒,他对他说,请你继续谈论。依照你理解它的这个服务,将你发现你拥有的这些工具,听从这位能够工作的人的支配。但是岌岌可危的是,这个劳力,你们将要付钱交换的劳工,他能够用这个机械与磨坊的机器铸造,你们付钱给他,交换这个劳力,依照用跟我早先引述的他的量尺正在工作的东西。
换句话说,他本来可以凭借这个量尺保证,也就是保证他的生存。」

What is highlighted in passing, and of
course not noted, about the conjunction of laughter with this
relationship, this relationship here to a pleading that appears to be
nothing but the most honest of discourses, is this relationship to this
radically eluded function, whose proper relationship to this
characteristic elision in so far as it properly constitutes the o-object, I
already sufficiently indicated in our discourse

偶然被强调的东西,当然,并没有被注意到的东西,关于笑声与这个关系的连接,在此跟似乎仅是最诚实的辞说的诉求的关系。就是这个跟强烈闪烁的功能的关系。它跟作为特征的失漏洞恰当的关系。因为它恰当地形成这个客体,我在我的辞说已经充分地指示。

Here again, I am saying it because of not having been able to do so at
the time when I began to construct the graph around the witticism, here
is the fundamental relationship around which there still turns the
shock, the forcing, a little more, a little less that I spoke about earlier,
the conjuring trick, the hey presto that grabs our gut in the effect of the
witticism. In short, the radical, essential function of the relation that is
hidden in a certain relationship of production to work is indeed, as you
see there as elsewhere, at another deeper point which is the one to
which I am trying to lead you.

在此,我正在说它,因为我一直没有办法这样做,当我开始建构环绕机智语的这个图形。在此是这个基本关系,环绕这个基本关系,这个震撼,这个力量,稍微多些,稍微少些,我早先谈论到的,这个召唤的诡计,在机智语的影响里,捉住我们的勇气的这个快速召唤。总之,隐藏在生产跟工作的某种关系的这个强烈的,基本的功能,你们在此跟在别的地方看见的,那确实是在另外一个更加深刻的点。那就是我正在尝试引导你们去的这个点。

Around surplus enjoying there is
something like a fundamental gag that depends properly speaking on
this joint into which we have to drive our wedge when what is at stake
is this relationship that operates in the experience of the unconscious in
its most general function. This is not to say — and here again I am
going to take up something that may be used for risky formulae — this
is not to say that there can in any way be a theory of the unconscious.
In what I am doing, trust me, it is nothing of the kind that I am aiming
at.

环绕这个剩余欢爽,有某件东西像是一个基本笑话。这个笑话恰当来说,依靠这个关联,我们将我们这个契子插入这个关联。当岌岌可危的东西是这个关联,在无意识的经验运作的这个关联,用它最通俗的功能。这并不是说—在此,为将要从事某件东西,可以被用来作为冒险的公式—这并不是说,存在着任何方式的无意识的理论。请你们相信我,用我正在做的事情,无意识的理论根本不是我打算追寻的东西。

That there is a theory of psychoanalytic practice, undoubtedly, of the
unconscious, no. Unless you want to pour in what is involved in this
theory of psychoanalytic practice, which what? In the unconscious
gives us what can be taken up in this field in the field of this practice,
but nothing else. To speak about the theory of the unconscious, is
really to open the door to this sort of ridiculous deviation that I am
hoping to prevent. This is what has been displayed already, for long
years, under the term o f ‘applied psychoanalysis’, and has allowed all
sorts of abuse. To apply it precisely to what? In particular to the fine
arts! In short, I do not want to insist any more, towards this form of
tipping over or dumping on the edge of the psychoanalytic road, the
one that ends up in a hole that I find dishonourable.

无可置疑,是存在着无意识的精神分析实践的理论。除非你们想要将所被牵涉的东西,倾注于精神分析实践的理论。那是什么?在无意识里,给予我们能够探讨的东西,在这个领域,这个实践的领域,仅此而已。谈论到无意识的理论,确实是会打开这道门,进入我正在希望阻挡的这种荒谬的偏离。长久以来,这就是已经被展示的东西,在“实用精神分析学”的术语之下,并且容许各种的浮滥使用。确实地要将精神分析实用到什么?特别是实用到精致的技艺!总之,我并不想要再坚持了,朝向这个绊倒的形式,或倾倒在精神分析道路的边缘。精神分析道路最后结束于一个我发现很不光荣的空洞。

Let us take things up again. The Other only gives the stuff of the
subject, or his topology or that through which the subject introduces a
subversion certainly, but that is not only his own in the sense that I
have pinpointed when I spoke about the subversion of the subject. The
subversion of the subject with respect to what has been stated about it
up to now, this is what is meant by this articulation in the title I put it
into. But the subversion that is at stake is the one that the subject
(50) introduces certainly, but that the Real sticks to, which in this
perspective, is defined as the impossible.

让我们再次探讨事情。大他者仅是给予主体的材料,或是他的拓扑图形,或是凭借拓扑图形主体介绍一个确实是颠覆的东西。但是那不仅是他自己的颠覆。因为我曾经强调,当我谈了关于主体的这个颠覆。主体的颠覆,关于迄今所曾经被陈述的东西。这就是我提出的这个标题的这个表达的意涵的东西。但是岌岌可危的这个颠覆,就是主体确实介绍的东西,但是实在界却坚持它。从这个观点,这个颠覆被定义为不可能。

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

Identification 205

May 22, 2015

Identification 205
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII
9
Sadism becomes a perversion when the beating is no longer sought
or given as a sign of love but when it is perceived by the
subject as the only possibility of procuring Jouissance for a
phallus: and the sight of this Jouissance becomes the only
possibility offered to the pervert for his own Jouissance.

虐待狂成为倒错,当鞭打不再被寻求或给予,作为爱的讯息。当它主体感觉,作为是唯一个可能性,获得阳具的欢爽的唯一的可能性:这个欢爽的景象变成是唯一的可能性,被给予倒错者,作为他自己的欢爽。

A lot has been said about the aggressivity of exhibitionism.
Flashing is a way of attacking the other undoubtedly, but the
exhibitionist is convinced that this aggression is source of
Jouissance for the Other. The obsessional when he is
exhibitionistic tries to bait the other; he shows what he thinks
the other doesn’t have but wants to have.

许多事情曾经被说过,关于暴露狂的攻击性。无可置疑地,闪露就是一种攻击他者的方式。但是暴露狂者相信,这种攻击性就是对于大他者的欢爽的来源。妄想症者,当他是暴露狂者,他尝试钓取大他者,他显示他认为大他者并没有拥有,但是想要拥有的东西。

The intention is
aggressive. Think of the ratman: the father is Jouissance is the
father’s least of his worries: he shows to the dead father what
he thinks the dead father would like to take away from him. This
is an aggressive act from which the obsessional draws Jouissance.
Whereas the pervert seeks his own Jouissance via that of another.
This is what perversion is: this zig-zag journey, this detour by
which the ego is always at the service of an anonymous phallic
power.

这个意图具有攻击性。请你们想一下鼠人。父亲是攻击性。欢爽是父亲最微不足道的焦虑。他对死去的父亲显示他认为死去的父亲想要从他这里拿掉的东西。这就是攻击性的行为。妄想症者从这个攻击性行为获得欢爽。而倒错者则是寻求他自己的欢爽,经有另外一个倒错者的欢爽。这就是倒错症的本质:这个迂回的旅行,凭借这个迂回,自我总是处于匿名的阳具的权利。

He does not care who is his object, it is enough for him
that it should be capable of Jouissance that he can make of it a
support of this phallus to which he is identified, that it can
serve as an object presumed to be capable of procuring Jouissance
for this phallus. This is why, contrary to what one finds in
neurosis, perverse identification like its particular type of
object relation is something which is striking in its stability,
its unity.

他并不在乎谁是他的客体。只要这个客体能够成为欢爽,对他就足够了,他能个将这个欢爽作为这个阳具的支持,他被认同的阳具。这个阳具能够充当一个客体,被认为能够替阳具获得欢爽的客体。这就是为什么,跟我们在神经症者发现的相反,倒错的认同,像是它的特别种类的客体关系,倒错的认同是某件它的稳定性,它的一致性,引人注意到东西。

2.5.62 XVIII
10
We now reach our fourth category which is the one most difficult
to grasp: psychosis.

我们现在到达我们的第四个范畴。这第四个范畴是最困难理解的:精神病。

The psychotic is a subject whose demand has never been symbolised
by the Other, for whom the real and the symbolic, phantasy and
reality have never been demarcated because he has never acceded
to the imaginary, the third dimension which alone allows a
differentiation between these two different levels. In order to
simplify things let us situate ourselves at the very first moment
of the history of the subject, before the oral relation at the
moment of conception.

精神病是一个主体,他的要求界从来没有被大他者象征的主体。对于他,实在界与象征界,幻见与现实,从来没有被分清界限,因为他从来没有让步于想像界。光是这第三个维度就容许我们区别这两个不同的层次。为了简化事情,让我们定位我们自己,在主体的历史的第一个时刻。在观念的这个时刻,口腔关系之前。

The first amputation undergone by the psychotic happens before
his birth: for his mother he is a part of her own metabolism; all
paternal participation is denied by her, is unacceptable.
Throughout the pregnancy the child is the partial object which
will fill up the phantasmatic lack on a bodily plane. From birth
the role assigned to him will be to be the witness of her
negation of castration.

精神病者经历的第一个切除发生在诞生之前。因为他的母亲,他说她自己的新陈代谢的部分。所有的父亲的参与,都被她否认,都是不可接受的。在怀孕的期间,小孩是部分客体,将会填补在身体的层次的幻景。从诞生,被指定给他的角色,将会是见证母亲对阉割的否定。

The child contrary to what is often said is not the mother’s
phallus: he is the proof (witness) that the breast is the
phallus, which is not the same thing. So that the breast may be
the phallus and an all powerful one, the response it brings to
the child must be perfect and total. The demand of the child
cannot be recognised as anything that is not demand for food, the
dimension of desire at the level of the subject must be denied;
what characterizes the mother of the psychotic is a total
interdiction which blocks the child from becoming subject to any
desire.

相反于经常被说的事情,。小孩并不是母亲的阳具:小孩是这个证据)(见证者):乳房就是阳具。这并不是相同的事情。乳房可能是阳具,并且是非常有力量的阳具,乳房带给小孩的回应,一定是完美与整体。小孩的要求无法被体认,作为是任何并非是食物的要求的东西。处于主体的层次的欲望的维度必须被否认。作为精神病者的母亲的特征的东西,就是完整的指令,阻挡小孩不能成为屈服于任何欲望。

One can see from this moment how the psychotic’s particular
relation to the word will develop. From the beginning it will be
impossible for him to maintain his relation to the demand: if he
is responded to only as a mouth to be fed, only as a partial
object, every demand, even as it is being formulated will carry
within it the death of desire.

从这个时刻,我们能够看见,精神病的跟这个文字的特殊的关系,将会发展。从一开始,他将不可能维持他跟要求界的关系:假如他仅是作为一个有待餵食的嘴巴被回应,仅是作为部分客体被回应,每个要求,即使当这个要求被说明,将会在它里面带着欲望的死亡。

Since he has not been symbolised
by the Other he will be drawn himself to make the symbolic and
the real coincide in the response. Since no matter what he
demands, it is food which is given to him, it will be food as
such which will become for him the master signifier. From that
moment the symbolic will erupt into the real: instead of the gift
of food finding its symbolised equivalent in the gift of love,
for him every gift of love can only be signified by oral
absorption.

因为他从来没有被大他者象征化,他自己将会被吸引来让象征界与实在界巧合一致,在回应当中。因为不管他如何要求,给被有他的就是食物。对他而言,就是食物的本身己那个成为主人能指。 从那个时刻开始,象征界将会爆发进入实在界。非但不是食物的礼物,在爱的礼物,找到它的象征化的相等物,对于他,每个爱的礼物,仅能够凭借口腔的吸收来表示意涵。

To love or to be loved will be translated by him
into oral terms: to absorb or to be absorbed. For him there will
always be a fundamental contradiction between demand and desire:
either he maintains his demand and his demand destroys him as
subject of desire: he must alienate himself as subject in order
to make himself a mouth, an object to be fed: or else he will try
one way or another to constitute himself as subject and to do
this he will find himself obliged to alienate that body part
which is the source of pleasure and the origin of his response of
himself which is for him incompatible with any attempt at
autonomy.

爱与被爱将会被他翻译成为口腔术语:吸收或是被吸收。对他而言,将总是存在着一个基本的悖论,在要求与欲望之间。要就是,他维持他的要求,然后他的要求毁灭他,作为欲望的主体。他必须疏离他自己,作为主体,为了让他自己成为嘴巴,必须被餵食的客体。要不就是,他将会尝试某种方法来组成他自己作为主体,并且为了这样做,他将会发现他不得不疏离那个身体的部分,属于快乐的来源与他自己的回应的起源的身体的部分。对于他,这个身体的部分跟任何企图获得自主权是不相和谐的。

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

From an other to the Other 23

May 20, 2015

From an other to the Other 23
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 4 December 1968
Let us go to the heart of things because we are late and let us take
things up by recalling on what, in short, were centred our last remarks
about the Other, in short, about what I called the big Other. I ended by
putting forward certain schemas, while sufficiently warning, I think,
that they were not to be taken uniquely from their more or less
fascinating appearance, but were to be referred to a logical articulation,
the one properly made up of this relationship of a signifier to an Other
signifier, Si -> S2, that I tried to articulate in order to draw out its
consequences by starting from the function, elaborated in set theory, of
the ordered pair.

让我们探讨事情的核心,因为我们晚到,让我们以回想方式探讨事情,总之,回想一下我们上次谈论有关大他者专注的事情。总之,关于我所谓的“大他者”。我结束时提出某些基模,另外一方面,我认为我提出充分警告,他们不应该独特地被看待,脱离他们相当迷人的外表。而是应该被提到某个逻辑的表达。这个逻辑的表达恰如其分地由这个关系组成,能指与大他者的能指的这个关系组成,›S1>S2。我设法表达这个关系,为了获得它的结果,凭借从这个功能开始,用集合理论被建构的功能,有秩序的配对的功能。

At least it was on this logical foundation that I tried
the last time to make you sense this something that has a point, a point
around which there turns the interest – the interest for all I hope – the
interest that it should be well articulated, that the Other, this big Other,
O, in its function as I already approached it, the Other enclosed no
knowledge that one can presume, let us say, will one day be absolute.

至少,根据这个逻辑的基础,我上传尝试让你们理解这个某件东西。它具有一个点,环绕这个点,这个興趣转变—我所希望的興趣—让它应该被清楚表达的興趣,这个大他者O,在它的功能,如同我已经接近它。这个大他者没有封闭任何的知识,我们不妨说,没有封闭任何我们可以认为是绝对的知识。

You see, there I am pointing things towards the future while ordinarily
I articulate towards the past, that this reference to the Other is the
erroneous support of knowledge as already there. Good! So then here I
am highlighting – because in a moment we are going to have to say it
again – 1 am pointing up the use that I made of the function of the
ordered pair. Because I had, my God, something that could be called
the good luck, to receive from a hand that I regret is anonymous, a
piece of paper posing the question of explaining myself perhaps a little
more about this use of the ordered pair that, no doubt, to the author of
this note seemed a little precipitous, if riot excessive. He perhaps does
not all the same go that far — precipitous. I am not going to begin with
that, but I take note to say that later then I will come back to it.

你们看出,在那里,我将事情指向未来。而平常我则是表达朝向过去。提到大他者就是知识已经是在那里的错误的支持。 呵呵!就在这里,我正在强调—因为过一下子,我们将必须再次说它—我正在指出这个用途,我利用有秩序的配对的用途。因为我拥有某件东西,能够被称为好运。为了从我接收,很遗憾是匿名的帮忙。那是一篇论文提出这个问题,跟我稍微更加解释,关于这个有秩序的配对的用途。无可置疑地,对于这个注释的作者,这似乎是有点突兀,虽然不算是过分。他或许仍然没有过分到那样—突兀。我将不从那里开始,但是我们注意地说,稍后,我将回到它。

That the Other should be put in question, is extremely important for the
continuation of our discourse. There is not in this statement, let us say
first – this statement that the Other contains no knowledge that is either
already there or to come, in an absolute status – there is not in this
statement anything subversive.

大他者应该被置于,这个事情极端重要,为了继续我们的辞说。在这个陈述里并不存在着—让我们首先说—这个陈述:大他者并没有包含任何已经在那里,或未来的知识,处于绝对的地位—在这个陈述里并没有存在任何颠覆的东西。

I read something recently somewhere, at an ideal point that moreover
will remain in its comer, as I might say, the term ‘subversion of
knowledge’. This term ‘subversion of knowledge’ was there, my God,
advanced more or less under my patronage. I regret it because in truth
I advanced absolutely nothing of the sort, and such slippages can only
(47) be considered as very regrettable and enter into this sort of shoddy
usage that can be made of fragments that are not even very well
detached from my discourse. A screwing together again of terms that
my discourse, precisely, never dreamt of bringing together to make
them function on a market which would not be at all happy if it took
the turn of being used for university colonisation.

我最近在某个地方阅读某件东西,处于一个理想的点。而且,这个理想的点始终是在它的角落里。我不妨说,“知识的颠覆”的这个术语。“知识的颠覆”的这个术语在那里,呵呵,在我的眷顾之下被提出。我很遗憾它,因为事实上我绝对没有提出任何这样的东西。这样的失误仅能够被认为是令人遗憾,并且进入这种的粗俗的用法,由跟我的辞说没有清楚隔离的那些片段所使用。将这些术业锁紧一块,我的辞说确实没有梦想要将它们聚拢一块,为了让它们在市场的发挥功能。假如我的辞说轮番地被使用充当大学的殖民地,它根本就不会快乐。

Why should
knowledge be subverted because it cannot be absolute? This
pretension, wherever it shows itself, or wherever it has shown itself, it
must be said, has always been laughable. Laughable, precisely, we are
here at the heart of our subject. I mean that this new start made in the
witticism in so far as it provokes laughter, it provokes laughter,
precisely, in short, in so far as it is properly attached to the fault
inherent in knowledge.

为什么知识应该被颠覆,因为它无法成为绝对知识。这个伪装,无论它显示什么,或无论它在什么地方显示它自己。我们必须说,这个伪装总是可笑的。确实是可笑的,我们在此,在我们主体的核心。我的意思是,这个新的开始,在这个机智语,因为它引起笑声,它引起笑声,确实地,总之,因为它巧若如分地跟知识的本质的错误连系一块。

If you will allow me a little parenthesis, I will recall, I will recall
somewhere in – 1 thought I still had 25 minutes when I began, thank
God, to signal that I wanted a taxi to be called, so that I did not find
exactly the page of the first chapter of the third part of Capital, The
production o f absolute surplus value and chapter V on Labour and its
valorisation. It is there I believe that there are found a few pages,
something that, make no mistake, I did not wait for the recent
researches on the structuralism of Marx to pick out. I mean that this
old volume that you see more or less coming apart in pieces, I
remember the . time when I read it in what was my transportation of that
time, when I was 20 years old, namely, the Metro, when I was going to
the hospital.

假如你们容许我稍微括弧一下,我将会回想,我将会回想某个地方—我认为我依旧还有25分钟,当我开始,感谢上帝,指示要有一部计程车要叫。我没有发现确实找到这一页,就是“资本论:绝对剩余价值的产生的第三部分的第一章与劳工及其工资的第五章。我相信,有好几页被找到,某件没有错误的东西,我并没有等待最近的研究马克思的结构主义,为了挑出,我指的是这个老旧的这本,你们看见相当破旧了。我记得当我阅读它的那次,在我20岁时的搭车时刻,也就是地下铁,当我去医院时。

And at that time, there was something that caught me and
struck me, namely, how Marx, at the moment he introduces surplus
value, he introduced a little more, a little surplus value, he did not
introduce it, nor value, I am confusing you, but he introduces it and he
introduces it after taking some time. Taking time like that, in a
gentlemanly way, he allows the person involved, namely the capitalist,
to speak.

在当时,有某件东西吸引我,给我印象深刻。换句话说,马克思在他介绍剩余价值时,他稍微介绍一点剩余价值,他并没有介绍它,也没有评估它,我正在让你们混淆。但是他介绍它,经过一段时间后,他介绍它。像那样慢慢来,用绅士的方式,他让牵涉的这个人,资本家言说。

He allows him, in a way, to justify his position through what
is then the theme. In any case the service that is rendered, m a way, by
putting at the disposition of this man who only has, my God, his work,
and at the very most a rudimentary instrument, his jointer, the lathe and
the milling machine thanks to which he is going to be able to do
marvels- An exchange of good and even loyal services. A whole
discourse that Marx takes his time to develop, and what he signals,
what struck me at that time, at the time of these good old readings is
that he highlights there that the capitalist, a ghostly personage he is
confronting, the capitalist laughs.

他用某种方式让资本家替自己的立场自圆其说,通过这个主题的东西。无论如何,被提供的服务,以某种的方式,放在这个人的性情,他拥有他的工作,充其量是基本的工具,这个连接器,这个皮带,这个磨坊机器。由于它们,他才能够做出奇迹。优良,甚至是忠诚的服务的交换。整个的辞说,马克思慢慢发展起来。他所指示的东西,当时我印象深刻的东西,在这些优秀的古老的读物的时代,他在那里强调,资本家,他面对的魅影一般的人物,资本家哈哈大笑。

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

Identification 204

May 19, 2015

Identification 204
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII
8

This identificatory conflict between being the agent of
castration or the subject who undergoes it is what defines this
continual ???? this question which is always present at the level
of question at the level of identification which is clinically
referred to as neurosis.

在成为阉割的代理者或经历阉割的主体之间的冲突,就是定义这个连续的问号“????”的东西?总是出现在这个问题的层次的这个问题,临床上被提到作为神经症的认同的问题。

The third case is what we encounter in perversion. If this
latter has been defined as the negative of neurosis, we find the
structural opposition also at the level of identification. The
pervert is he who has eliminated all identificatory conflict: on
the oral plane we could say that in perversion the subject
constitutes himself as if the activity of absorption had no other
goal than to make of him an object which provides phallic
Jouissance for the Other.

第三个情况是我们在倒错症遭遇的问题。假如后者一直被定义作为是神经症的否定,我们在认同的层次,也发现结构性的对立。倒错症已经减少所有的认同的冲突,在口腔的层次,我们能够说:在倒错症,主体组成他自己,好像是吸收的活动没有其他目的,除了就是将它当作客体。这个客体提供欢爽给大他者。

The pervert neither has nor is the
phallus: he is this ambiguous object which serves a desire which
is not his: his Jouissance is in this strange situation where the
only identification possible to him is as an object which
procures the Jouissance of a phallus, but he doesn’t know to whom
this phallus belongs.

倒错者既没有阳具,也不是阳具。他是暧昧的客体,这个客体充当并不是属于他的欲望。他的欢欢处于这个奇异的情况。在这个情况,对于他的唯一可能的认同是作为获得阳具的欢爽的客体。但是他并不知道这个阳具属于谁的。

One could say that the desire of the
pervert is to respond to the demand of the phallus. To take a
banal example I would say that in order for the Jouissance of the
sadist to appear, another is pleasured by the fact that he the
pervert makes himself into a whip. If I speak of phallic demand
which is a kind of play on words it is because for the pervert
the other exists only as the almost anonymous support of a
phallus for whom the pervert performs his sacrificial rights.

我们能够说,倒错者的欲望是要回应阳具的要求。举个陈旧的例子,我不妨说,为了让虐待狂的欢爽出现,另外一个虐待狂从这个事实获得快乐。他作为倒错者让他自己成为一条鞭子。假如我谈到阳具的要求,那是一种文字遊戏。那是因为对于倒错者,另外一个倒错者存在,仅是为了作为几乎是匿名的阳具的支持。倒错者执行他的牺性的权利,就是为了这另外一个倒错者。

The perverse response is always a negation of the Other as
subject. The perverse identification is always to this object
which is the source of the Jouissance for a phallus which is as
powerful as it is phantasmatic. Perversion needs to be seen in a
context which is wider than the merely sexual. Perversion refers
to Jouissance what ever the bodily part involved.

倒错者的回应总是否定大他者作为主体。倒错者的认同总是认同于这个客体,作为阳具的欢爽的来源。这个客体是强而有力,如同它是巨大幻影。倒 错者需要被看见,在文本里,这个文本比起仅是性的文本更加寛广。倒错者将身体的部分牵涉的东西,都提到欢爽。

If I share Lacan’s distrust for what is called genitality it is because
anatomical analysis is dangerous. The most normal seeming
intercourse can be as neurotic or as perverse as that which is
called a pregenital drive. Normality neurosis or perversion can
only be recognised by examining the relation between the ego and
the identification which does or does not permit Jouissance.

假如我分享拉康的不信任所谓的性器官,那是因为生理解剖的精神分析是危险的。即使表面看起来是再正常不过的交媾,有时都是神经症与倒错症,如同所谓的前性器官的冲动。正常来说,神经症或倒错症能够被承认,仅有凭借检视自我与容许欢爽或不容许欢爽的认同。

If one reserves the diagnosis of perversion to sexual perversion
only, not only will this get us nowhere since a purely
symptomatic diagnosis means nothing, but we will also be forced
to recognise that there are very few neurotics who will escape
this diagnosis. And it is not only at the level that the
solution is to be found of the guilt from which the pervert is
said to be exempt – no human being is free from guilt. The only
way to approach perversion is to try to define it at the level
where it exists, at the level behavour in relationship.

假如我们保留倒错的这个诊断,仅是给予性的倒错,这不但将会让我们没有进展,而且我们将会被迫承认,没有几个神经症者能够逃避这个诊断。罪恶感的解决能够被找到,不但在这个层次—没有人类能够避免罪恶感。唯一能够接近倒错的方法,就是尝试要定义它,在倒错存在的层次,行为在关系里的层次。

The obsessional can also be sadistic – for him it means the
ongoing presence of an anal relation, a relation where it is a
question of possessing or being possessed, a relation where the
love which one feels and of which one is the object can only be
signified to the subject in terms of a possession which can go so
far as the destruction of the object.

妄想症者有时也是虐待狂-对于他,这意味着,肛门的关系的即将来临的存在。在这一个关系,问题是要拥有或是被拥有。在这个关系,我们感觉的爱,与我们是爱的客体的关系,仅有凭借拥有的术语,赋予主体的意涵。拥有会过分到毁灭客体。

The obsessional is the one
who punishes well because he loves well, he for whom the father’s
beating has remained the privileged sign of his love and who is
always seeking someone to whom he can give or from whom he can
receive this beating. But having giving or received it, having
assured himself that he is loved he will seek Jouissance in a
different type of relation to the same object and whether this
relation is oral, anal or vaginal it will not be perverse in the
sense I mean, which seems to me to be the only one by which one
can avoid extending this label perverse to a large number of
neurotics and a large number of our fellow men.

妄想症者是这位惩罚严厉的人,因为他爱得深刻。对于这位妄想症者,父亲的鞭打始终是他的爱的特权的讯息。他总是寻求某个人,他给你给予这个鞭打,或是他能给接收他的鞭打。但是曾经给予鞭打或接收鞭打,曾经让自己确信,他被爱,他将会寻找欢爽,用跟客体的不同关系的种类,跟这个相同的客体。无论这个关系是口腔关系,或是阴户关系。以我的意义来说,并不是倒错。我觉得,这种倒错是唯一我们能够避免的倒错。将倒错的这个标签延伸到许多的神经症者,许多的我们的同胞。

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

From an other to the Other 23

May 18, 2015

From an other to the Other 23
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.11.68 IE 19

I am not going to show it here on the board. It is enough simply that
what results from simply posing the question of whether S is in O — in
so far as contrary to it, it does not start from the fact, that as O, with
respect to itself, it contains itself – by simply wanting to isolate it, you
do not know, try it out, where to place it. If it is outside it is inside.

我在此将不显示它在黑板上。光束从这个问题的提出所造成的结果的东西,就足够了。能指S是否在大他者O这里的这个问题—因为跟它相反地,它并不是从这个事实开始:作为大他者O, 关于它自己,它包含它自己。凭借仅是想要孤立它。你们并不知道将它放置在哪儿,你们尝试看看。假如它是在外面,它是在里面。

If it is inside it is outside. In other words that in no way, for any
discourse that posits itself as being essentially founded on the
relationship of a signifier to another signifier, it is impossible to
totalise it as discourse in the measure in which this is said and is posed
as a question. The universe of discourse — I am speaking here not
simply of the signifier, but of what is articulated as discourse – will
always have to be extracted from whatever field whatsoever that
pretends to total it.

假如它在里面,它就在外面。换句话说,对于任何提出它自己做为辞说,作为它自己的基础基本上是在能指与另外一个能指的关系。我们不可能将它当成作为是辞说的整体。因为在这个辞说里,这件事情被说,被提出,作为问题。辞说的宇宙—我在此正在言说的不仅是这个能指,而且言说的是被表述作为辞说的东西—它总是必须从任何假装是辞说的整体的领域,抽离出来。

In other words, that what you will see being produced inversely to this
schema, is that, in the measure that you question yourself about the
belonging to the set of any S whatsoever first of all posited in this
relation, the S will be necessarily excluded from the small o. And that
the next S you question — I said small o that was a mistake — the next S
that you question is the one reproduced in the relation S(O) that I here
showed, reproduced, will-also leave it. They will all leave it
indefinitely given the essence of what is essentially metonymical in the
continuity of the signifying chain. Namely, that every signifying
element is extracted from any conceivable totality.

换句话说,你们将会看见的东西,跟这个基模的逆转方式被产生。随着你们询问自己,关于任何能指的集合的归属感,在这个关系里首先被提出的东西。这个能指S将必须被排除,从这个小的他者o。你们质疑的这下一个能指S—我说它是小它者o是个错误。你们质疑的下一个能指S,就1这个S(O)的关系被复制到这个能指。我在此显示的S(O)的关系,被复制,我也将留下它。他们全部都离开它。他们将会不确定地离开它,因为考虑到基本是换喻的本质,在成为能指的锁链的连续性里。换句话是,每个成为能指的元素,都是从可以构想的整体里被抽离出来。
http://www.lacaninireland.com
27.11.68 III 20

This, I apologise, to end, is no doubt a little difficult. But note that
(45) in seeing this process being displayed with successive exits from
envelopes that are never unfruitful, and not ever being able to be
encompassed in it either, what is indicated, is that what is tangible in
terms of the division of the subject emerges precisely from this point –
that, in a spatial metaphor we call a hole, in so far as it is the structure
of the cross-cap or of the Klein bottle – emerges precisely from this
centre where the o is posited as absence.

我抱歉,为了结束,这无可置疑是困难的。但是请你们注意,当我们看见这个过程正在被展示,以连续性的退出,从从来不是没有成果的涵盖里。甚至并不是从没有能够被涵盖在它里面。所被指示的东西就是,用主体的区分的术语,具体表现的东西,确实是从这个点出现。用空间的隐喻,我们称它为空洞。因为它是这个交叉帽或是克莱因瓶的结构—它确实是从这个中心出现,这个小它者o被提出作为缺席的中心。

This is enough to make you apprehend the continuation of the
consequence that I will pursue as regards the graph and which may
take on its full import as regards the place of analytic questioning
between the chain of demand and the enunciating chain. Between the
enunciating by which the subject only states himself as ‘ he and
between what appeared not simply in terms of the demand, but of the
relationship of the demand to the enunciating chain, as “I” and as
“thou”. This will be the object of our next meeting.

这就足够让你们理解这个结果的连续性。关于这个图形,我将追寻的这个结果的连续性。这个结果的连续性将会具有它完整的意义,关于精神分析询问的位置,在要求界的锁链与表述的锁链之间。在主体凭借用来表述,仅是陈述它自己,作为“他”。在出现不但用要求界的术语,而且用要求界与表述的锁链的要求的关系,作为这个“我”与作为这个“你”。这将是我们下次会见探讨的目标。

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

Identification 203

May 17, 2015

Identification 203
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII
6

It seems to me that the first moment of this key mechanism of the
oral relation which is projective identification has its origin
in the mother. There is a first projection on the plane of
desire which comes from her.

我觉得,作为投射认同的口腔的这个关键机制的第一时刻,拥有它的起源于母亲。这是来自母亲的欲望的层次的最初投射。

The child will have to identify
with this or to fight it, to refuse an identification which he
may experience as determinant. And this first state of human
evolution can also carry with it the revelation for the subject
of what it is that his demand conceals.

小孩将必须认同这个投射或是对抗这个投射,为了拒绝他可能经验到作为决定性的认同。这就是人类进化的这个最初的状态,它能够随之带来主体的启发,对于他的要求界隐藏的东西的主体。

From this moment
Jouissance which doesn’t wait for phallic organisation to appear
can enter the picture carrying with it the revelatory dimension
it will always conserve: if frustration reveals the gap between
need and desire, Jouissance on the contrary by responding to that
which has not been formulated reveals that which is beyond the
demand, in other words desire.

从这个时刻,并不等待阳具的组织出现的欢爽,能够进入这个画面,随之带着欢爽将总是保存的启示的维度:假如挫折显示这个差距,处于需要与欲望的维度。相反地,欢爽凭借回应并没有被说明的东西,欢爽显示超越要求界的东西,换句话说,欲望的东西。

What do we see in the oral
relation? That demand and response are articulated for both
partners around a partial relation – mouth breast. The response
at the level of the oral cavity provokes an activity of
absorption, a source of pleasure; an external object, the milk
will become part of one’s own bodily substance. This is what
gives it meaning and its importance to this absorption. Starting
from this first response the seeking out of this activity of
absorption, this source of pleasure will become the object of
demand. As for desire it must be sought elsewhere, although it
is from this same baseline, this same response, this same
experience of the appeasement of need that it will constitute
itself.

我们在口腔关系看见什么呢?要求与回应被表达,对于两个伴侣,环绕一个部分的关系—嘴巴-乳房。在口腔空隙的层次的这个回应,激发吸收的活动,快乐的来源,一个外在的客体,奶水将成为我们自己的身体的物质。这就是给予它意义的东西,给予这个吸收的重要性的东西。从这个首次回应开始,对于吸收的这个活动的寻找,快乐的这个来源将会成为要求的客体。至于欲望,欲望必须在别处寻找。虽然欲望是从这个相同的基础线,这个相同的回应,这个相同的经验,它将会构成它的自身的需要的姑息的相同的经验。

If the mouth breast relation and the activity of absorbing food
represent the numerator of the equation representing the oral
relation, there is also a denominator, that which invokes the
mother child relationship, and it is here that desire must be
situated. No-where else may one more fully appreciate the truth
of the proverb: the manner in which one gives is more important
than that which one gives.

假如嘴巴-乳房的关系与吸收食物的活动,代表方程式的分子,代表口腔关系的方程式。也有一个分母存在,召唤母亲-小孩的关系的分母。就在这里,欲望必须被定位。对于这个谚语的真理,在这个地方,最受的赏识:我们给予的方式,比起我们给予的东西,更加重要。

Thanks to or because of this manner
of giving, in view of what it reveals of maternal desire, the
child will learn the difference between the gift of food and the
gift of love. Along with the absorption of food, an introjection
occurs, a phantasmatic relationship in which the child and the
Other are represented by their unconscious desires. If the
numerator can carry a plus sign the denominator can at the same
moment carry a minus sign; it is this difference of sign between
demand and desire, this place from which frustration arises, that
is the origin of every signifier.

由于或因为这个给予的方式,因为它显示的东西,关于母亲的欲望,小孩将会学习到,食物作为礼物与爱作为礼物之间的差异。除了食物的吸收外,会发生一种内射,一种幻影的关系。在这个关系里,小孩与大他者被代表,被他们的无意识的欲望所代表。假如分子能够带一个“加法”的符号,分母同时也能够带一个“减法”的符号。就是要求与欲望之间的这个差异,挫折就从这个地方起源,那就是每个能指的来源。

From here one can trace the different phases of the evolution of
the subject – normal, neurotic, perverse or psychotic. I will
try to schematise them here, simplifying them perhaps in a
slightly caricatural fashion in order to show the relationship
which exists in each case between identification and anxiety.
In the first and most Utopian situation the child finds in the
gift of food the gift of love which he desires.

从这里,我们能够追踪主体的进化的不同时期—正常,神经症,倒错,或精神病。我将尝试在这里将它们形成基模,简化它们,或许用稍微嘲讽的方式,为了显示这个关系,存在于每个情况的关系,在认同与焦虑之间。在这个最初而且非常理想化的情境里,小孩在食物的礼物,找到他欲望的爱的礼物。

The breast and
the maternal response can then become symbols of something else.
The child enters the symbolic world and can accept the unfolding
of the signifying chain. The oral relation as absorption can
then be abandoned and the subject evolves in the direction of
normal growth.

乳房与母亲的回应因此能够成为某件其他东西的象征。小孩进入象征的世界,并且能够接受象征锁链的展开。口腔作为吸收的关系,因此能够被放弃,主体进化,朝著正常成长的方向。

For this to happen the mother must have taken on board her own
castration. A third term, the father must be present for the
mother. Only then what she seeks in the child will not be some
kind of erotogenic satisfaction which makes of the child the
equivalent of the phallus, but a relation in which as mother she
is also the wife of the father.

为了让正常方向进化发生,母亲一定曾经担负起她自己的阉割。第三个术语,父亲必须出现,取代母亲。仅有这样,母亲在小孩身上寻找的东西,将不是某种性爱的满足。将小孩解释为阳具的相等的性爱的满足。而是一种关系,作为母亲,她也是父亲的妻子。

The gift of food will be a symbol of the gift of love for her and
because this gift of love will precisely not be the phallic gift
which the subject desires the child will be able to maintain his
relation to demand. He will have to seek the phallus elsewhere.
He will enter into the castration complex which alone will permit
him to identify himself with something other that S. Baird.

对于母亲,食物的礼物将是爱的礼物。因为爱的这个礼物,确实将不会是阳具的礼物,主体欲望的阳具的礼物。小孩将能够维持他跟要求界的关系。他将必须在别的地方寻找阳具。他将进入阉割情结。仅有阉割情结让他能够认同与某件并非是阳具的其他东西。

If the mother has not taken her own castration on board every
object which can be the source of pleasure or the object of
demand for the Other risks becoming for her the phallic
equivalent she desires. But in so far as the breast has a
privileged existence only for the child to whom it is
indispensable we see this child – phallus equivalent happening
which is centre to the origin of most neurotic structures.

假如母亲没有担负起她自己的阉割,将每样能够成为快乐的来源的东西,或是对于大他者的要求,对于母亲,冒险成为她欲望的阳具的相等物。但是当乳房仅有对于小孩,才拥有一个特权的存在。乳房对于小孩是无可免除的。我们看见这个小孩—阳具的相等,会发生。这是大部分的神经症的结构的起源的中心。

The subject as he develops will be faced with the dilemma of
either being or having whatever the bodily object – breast or
penis – which has become the phallic support. Either he will
identify with the one who has it, but not having acceded to the
symbolic, having it will always be having castrated the other.
Or else he will renounce having it, he will identify with the
phallus as the object of desire of the Other but must also then
renounce being himself the subject of desire.

随着主体发展,主体将会面临这个困境:要就是成为,要不就是拥有,这个身体的客体—乳房或阴茎,后者已经成为阳具的支持。他要就是认同拥有它的这个人,但是还没有让步给象征界,拥有阳具将总是已经阉割他者。要不然就是,他将放弃拥有它,他将认同阳具,作为是大他者的欲望的客体。但是也因此必须放弃他自己成为欲望的主体。

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

From an other to the Other 22

May 16, 2015

From an other to the Other 22
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.11.68 IE 17
0
You must not get it into your head nevertheless that it is reduced, that
it vanishes, as I might say spatially, that there is indicated here in any
way something that constitutes whether it is o f the order of an
infinitesimal reduction of distance, or of some passage to the limit. It
is only a matter of the ungraspability, even though it remains always
(43) the same, of this O as such. This ungraspable character should not
surprise us since we have made of this O the locus of the
Urverdrangung.

可是,你们一定不要认为,它被化简,它消失,不妨说说空间方面消失,无论如何,某件构成的东西被指示,无论它属于距离的微分化简,或是属于通过到极限。这仅是无法被理解的事情。即使它始终是相同,这个0的本身。这种无法被理解的特性,我们不应该感到惊奇,因为我们将这个0,解释作为“潜抑”的轨迹。

It allows us to see precisely that what I was
questioning earlier, namely, what was involved in what is designated
here as a circular drawing. It is in the measure that the O is multiplied
in this way, simply from that fact, we can write it outside and inside,
these circles are only indexing this identity. In other words, that this
circle, pushed further in one direction, from which there emerges this
notation of asymmetry will always in the final analysis join up with the
starting circle. *

它让我们明确地看见,我早先询问的东西,也就是说,所被牵涉的东西,在此被指明作为循环绘图的东西。随着这个0以这种方式加倍,仅是根据那个事实,我们能够书写它,从外部与内部。这些圆圈仅是作为这个认同的指标。换句话说,这个圆圈,朝著某个方向更进一步推进。从那个方向,不均称的这个标记追根究底,会跟开始的圆圈联合起来。

That this flight which ensures that it is in its own
interior that an envelope finds its outside, this is what – you may or
may not sense the kinship – what we have drawn in one of the previous
years in the topological form of the projective plane and illustrated in a
materialised fashion for the eye by the cross-cap. That the big O, as
such, has in itself this flaw that one cannot know what it contains if it
is not its own signifier, is the decisive question in which there is
highlighted what is involved in the flaw of knowledge. To the degree
that it is at the locus of the Other that there is appended the possibility
of the subject in so far as it is formulated, it is most important to know
that what guarantees it – namely, the locus of truth – is itself a locus
that is holed.

这个逃避保证在它自己的内部,一个涵盖找到它的外部。这就是—这个亲属,你们或许理解或不理解—这就是我们绘画的东西,在先前的一年,用投射层面的拓扑形式,并且用眼睛看得见的物质化的方式说明,用交叉帽。这个大写的O的本身,自己拥有这个瑕疵,以致于我们无法知道它包含什么,假如它不是它自己的能指。这是决定性的问题。在这个问题里,知识的瑕疵牵涉的东西被强调。在大他者的轨迹,主体的可能性被附属。当它被说明时,重要的是要知道,保证它的东西—也就是,真理的轨迹—它的自身是空洞的轨迹。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
27.11.68 ID 18
In other words, what we already know about a fundamental experience
that is not a random experience, an out of date production of priests,
namely, the question does God exist? We perceive that this question
only takes on its weight because precisely it depends on a more
fundamental structure, namely, at the locus of knowledge can we say
that in some way knowledge knows itself? It is always in this way that
I tried, for those who listen to me, to displace this question that can
only be the object of a wager about the existence of God, to displace it
onto something that can be well and truly articulated. Namely, that
however we support the function of knowledge, we are not able, it is a
fact of experience, to support it except by articulating it in the signifier.
Does knowledge know itself or is it gaping wide in its structure?

换句话说,我们已经知道的东西,关于一个基本的经验,并非是任意的经验,僧侣们的过时的产物。换句话说,“上帝是否存在”的这个问题。我们感觉到,这个问题具有份量,仅是因为它确实依靠一个更加基本的结构。在知识的轨迹,我们能够说知识以某种方式理解它自己吗?总是以这种方式,我尝试,为了让那些倾听我的人们替换这个问题。这个问题仅会是关于上帝的存在的赌注的目标。他们将这个问题替换成为某件能够清楚实在地表达的东西。换句话说,无论我们如何支持知识的功能,我们不能个支持它,除了凭借在能指表达它,这是一个经验的事实。知识理解它自己吗?或是知识在它的结构里展开差距?

The circle that draws this shape that, more simply again, I mean O, for
you to be able to find your bearings in it, I could – given this character
that my drawing has of being a circle that rediscovers itself^ but turned
inside out, since what is most interior is connected up in order that a
sense can be given to it as an index of the difficulty that is at stake –
have referred myself– I said, to the Klein bottle, which I made enough
drawings of here, I hope, for some people to remember it. What
appears from it is what? It is that this structure, and in so for as you
see, as we can give it some imaginary support – and this indeed is why
we ought to be particularly sober – this structure is nothing other than
the o-object. It is precisely because of that that the o-object is the hole
that is designated in the Other as such, that is put in question for us in
(44) its relation to the subject.

绘画这个形状的这个圆圈,我仅是指O这个圆圈,为了让你们能够找到你们在它里面的关联。我能够—假如考虑到这个特性,我的绘图具有的特性,作为重新发现它自己的圆圈,但是从里面向外面翻转。因为最内部的东西被联接起来,为了给予它一个意义,作为是岌岌可危的困难的指标—我曾经提到克莱因瓶,我在此做个充分的绘图。我希望,为了让人们记住它。从克莱因瓶出现的东西是什么?这个结构,因为你们看见,如同我们能够给予它某个想像的支持—这确实是为什么我们应该特别的清醒—这个结构实实在在就是这个小客体。确实是因为那样,小客体就是被指明的空洞,在大他者的自身。对于我们,那受到质疑,在它跟主体的关系。

Because let us try now to hold onto to this subject where it is
represented. Let us try to extract this S, this signifier that represents it
from the set constituted by the ordered pair. It is here that it would be
very simple for you to find yourself on familiar terrain, it is Russell s
paradox. -What are we doing here if not extracting from the set O the
signifiers that we can say do not contain themselves.

因为让我们现在尝试掌握这个主体,在那里,它被代表。让我们尝试抽离出这个S,这个能指,从这个有秩序的配对所构成的集合 ,来代表它的这个能指。就在这里,你们发现你们自己处于熟悉的平台,将是非常简单。那是罗素的悖论—我们在此所做的事情,难道不就是从O的这个集合,抽离出这些能指,不妨说说没有包含它们自己的能指。

It is enough —and I will let you search in the first pages of any theory at all, naive or
not, of sets – it is enough for you to have consulted it to know that, in
the same way as it is perfectly illustrated in the articulation of the
sophism, the class of all the catalogues that do not contain themselves
cannot in any way be situated in the form of a set for the good reason
that it cannot in any way be recognised in the elements already
inscribed of this set. It is distinct from it, I already went over this
theme. It is well known. It is trivial. There is no way of inscribing in a
set this something that you could extract from it by designating it as
the set of elements that do not contain themselves.

这就足够—我将让你们寻找,在任何集合的理论的前几页,无论天真与否。你们参照它一下就足够知道,以同样的方式,跟诡辩学派的表达同样完美地说明。一切没有包含它们自己的目录的类别,它们根本无法被定位,用集合的形式。理由很充分,它根本就无法被体认出来,在这个集合已经被铭记的这些元素里。它跟它不同,我已经阐述过这个主题。那是众所周知的,那是微不足道。在集合里,根本就没有方法铭记这个某件东西,你们能个从它那里抽离出这个东西,凭借指明它,作为是各种元素的集合,这些元素并没有包含它们自己。

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

From an other to the Other 21

May 15, 2015

From an other to the Other 21
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.11.68 m 15

Let us be satisfied, it is an artifice of presentation – 1 have no reason to
hide it here – that allows me to avoid an introduction along the path of
set theory and the reminder — if I had to do it, I would have to do it in
some articulated way — the reminder of this fact that at the first step,
this theory stumbles over a paradox, the one called Russell’s paradox.
Namely, what is to be done in a certain definition, that of sets, namely,
what is closest to the signifying relation, a relation of connection.

让我们满意,这是呈现的巧计–我没有理由隐藏它—这个呈现的巧计让我能够避免介绍,沿着集合理论与剩余物。假如我必须做它,我将必须用某个被表达的方式做它-这个事实的剩余物:在第一步,这个理论遭遇一个悖论,所谓的罗素的悖论。也就是说,用某种定义应该被做的事情,集合的悖论。也就是说,最靠近成为能指的关系,联接的关系。

Nothing else is yet indicated in what the first definition of the function
of signifier articulates, if not that it is the signifier 1, in a relationship
that we can define as we wish, the simplest term will be that of
belonging, the relationship of a signifier to another signifier. In this
relationship we have said, it represents the subject Si S2. This so
simple connection is enough to indicate to us if so many other traits did
not indicate it to us, to indicate to us that from mathematical logic, as
several linguists have perceived, it is set theory that finds itself most
able to treat it.

没有其他东西被指示,在能指的功能的第一个定义所表达的东西。它就是,这个能指示一我们能够随我们高兴定义的关系,最简单的术语将就是归属感的术语,能指跟另外一个能指的关系。在我们所说的这个关系,它代表主体S1,S2。这个如此简单的联接足够跟我们指示,假如如此多的其他特征没有跟我们指示的话,它足够跟我们指示,从数学逻辑,如同好几位语言学家曾经感觉到的,集合理论最能够处理它。

I am not saying to formalise it, but to treat this
(41) connection. I remind you, for those who have heard it spoken of a
little bit, that the first step that is met with is that with this single
condition of considering as a class – and this can even be proved –
every element of such a connection in so far as one can write that it
does not belong to itself, is going to involve a paradox. I repeat, I am
only giving this introduction here to indicate the place, to develop it
would make us rebound onto still more curious statements. Perhaps if
we have the time or if we take it later on we will be able to do it.

我并不是说要让它成为正式,而是要处理这个联接。我提醒你们,对于那些稍微曾经听过它被演说的人们。被遭遇到的第一步就是,用这个单一的情况来考虑作为一个分类—这甚至能够被证明—这样的联接的每个元素,都会牵涉到一个悖论,因为我们能够书写,它并没有属于它自己。我重复一遍,我在此仅是给予这个介绍,为了指示这个位置,发展它将会让我们反弹进入更加耐人寻味的陈述。或许,假如我们有这个时间,或假如我们后来从事它,我们将能够做它。

I am going to proceed differently and only starting from my graph try
to show you in a way, a formal one, what we are led to by the fact that
we take the formula, the signifier represents the subject only for
another signifier, that we take the elements that are offered us by the
graph itself at the start, from here. It is S, a signifier that we are going
to put here.

我将以不同方式前进,仅是从我的图形开始,我尝试用某种方式跟你们显示,一个正式的关系,我们被引导的东西,根据这个事实:我们採用这个公式,能指代表主体,仅是针对另外一个能指。我们接受被提供给我们的这些元素,用开始时的这个图形,从这里。这是能指,我们将要放在这里的能指。

If we take as other signifier this one constituted by O, if
we called it first of all big O, the locus, the treasury of signifiers, do we
not find ourselves in a position to question the following arrangement:
what is involved in posing as signifier of the relation itself the same
signifier that intervenes in the relation?

假如我们接受大他者形成的这个能指,作为另一个能指,假如我们首先称它为大他者,各种能指的宝藏,我们难道没有发现我们自己处于一个立场,要询问以下的安排:什么被牵涉到?当我们提出相同的能指,作为关系本身的能指,这个相同的能指介入于这个关系里。

In other words, if it is
important, as I underlined, that in this definition of the signifier there
only intervenes the alterity of the other signifier, what are we going to
be led to? Can it be formalised in a way that leads somewhere, by
pinpointing from this same signifier big O, the otherness of O? What
is involved in the relation? This way of posing the question — I say it
also to reassure those that it may disturb — is not at all foreign to what
constitutes the starting point of a certain phylum of formalisation in
mathematical logic.

换句话说,假如这是重要的,如同我强调,在能指的这个定义,仅有另外一个能指的他者介入,我们将会被引导到什么?它能够被正式化,用导致某个地方的方式?凭借从相同的能指,强调大他者,大写O的他者?这个关系会牵涉到什么?提出问题的这个方式—我说它,也是为了让那些可能感到困扰的人们安心。提出问题的这个方式,并不是外来的,对于形成数学逻辑里,某种正式化的类属的开始点。

This, at this level, would require me to develop
sufficiently the difference constituted by the definition of a set as
compared to the class. The question is so well posed in mathematical
logic that it is a point where it is indicated in this logic that, -would to
/heaven concerned us more closely, because the problems are resolved
in it. Namely, that the class of sets that contain themselves – you see
here at least indicated an example of it under the form of this
inscription – this class does not exist. But we have something different
to do than mathematical logic.

在这个层次,这将要求我充分发展这个差异,由集合的定义形成的差异,作为跟类别做比较。在数学逻辑里,这个问题清楚地被提出,在这个逻辑里,它被指示的点,但愿它跟我们更加密切地息息相关。因为这些难题在它里面被解决。换句话说,集合的类别包含它们自己—你们在此看见有关它的一个例子在此被指示,在这个铭记的形式之下—这个类别并不存在。但是我们用某件其他东西可做,除了数学逻辑。

27.11.68 m 15

Our relationship to the Other is a more burning relationship. And the
(42) fact of knowing whether what emerges from the simple fact of the
demand that the Other contains already in a way, everything it is
articulated around, if it were simply a question of discourse. In other
words if there were a dialogue, that very precisely, at the end of last
year, I proposed here that there is not this dialogue, if then this Other
could be conceived of as a closed code, one whose key you would only
have to press for the discourse to be established without fail, so that the
discourse can be totalised in it.

我们跟大他者的关系,是一个更加迫切的关系。知道从要求的这个简单的事实出现的东西,大他者已经用某个方式包含一切它被环绕表达的东西,即使它仅是辞说的问题。换句话说,假如存在着对话,非常确实地,在去年的结束,我在此建议,并没有这个对话,假如这个大他者能够被构想,作为一个封闭的符码,这个符号的关键,你们只要按下,辞说就一定能够被建立,这样,辞说就能够在它里面成为完整。

This is what, in this rudimentary
fashion, and in a way in the margin of set theory, I am questioning. In
place o f this Si, I could have put a little b like that you would have
noticed that it is a matter of b, a, ba. We are at the b, a, ba of the
/question. And from the ba you are going to see how it is dug out and
this topologically. And this is how we have posed the question. It is
clear that O in the ordered pair that constitutes this set is taken as
identical to the O that designates it. We are therefore going to write as
follows, the relationship of S with S in relation to big O, S^(S->0).

这就是用这个基本的形式,用集合理论的边缘的方式,我正在询问的东西。代替这个能指1 (S1),我本来能够放置一个小b,这样,你们本来会注意到,那是b,a,ba的事情。我们这个问题的这个不,b,a,ba。从这个ba,你们将会看见,它如何被挖出,而且用拓扑图形的方式挖出。这就是我们提出问题的方式。显而易见,在形成这个集合的这个有秩序的配对,O被认为是跟指明它的这个O是一致的。我们因此将书写如下:S跟S的关系,跟大写O的关系,S–(S—0)

I substitute for this O what this O is in so far as it is the signifier of the
set constituted by the relationship of S to O, a relationship of ordered
pair. This is quite usual in any development of a set theory whose very
foundation is the fact that every element is supposed to be able to be
the set itself. You see then what happens. Starting from this process
we are going to have a series of – 1 do not know what the circles that I
am drawing are, they helped us to make the set and its designation as
such function – we have an indefinite repetition of S without ever
being able at the end to stop the withdrawal, as I might say, of the big-
O.

我用这个0的本质的东西代替这个0,因为它是这个集合的能指,有s 跟0的关系所形成。这是有秩序的配对的关系。这是相当寻常的,在集合理论的任何发展。这个集合理论的基础就是这个事实:每个元素都被认为是能够作为集合的自身。你们因此看见所发生的事情。从这个过程开始,我们将拥有一系列的—我不知道我正在画的圆圈是什么—它们将帮助我们形成这个集合,指明这个集合作为这样的功能—我们拥有这个S的不明确的重复。最后,我们无法停止大写0的这个撤退,不妨这样说。

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

Identification 202

May 15, 2015

Identification 202
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

2.5.62 XVIII

In the Seminar of April 4th to which I refer Lacan tells us that:
“castration can be conceived as a transitional passage from what
in him is the natural, become half alien, vacillating support of
desire through this habilitation by the law, by means of which
this piece, this pound of flesh is going to become the pledge,
the something through which he is going to be designated at the
place where he has to manifest himself as desire within the
circle of demand”.

在我提到的4月4日电研讨班,拉康告诉我们:「阉割能够被构想,作为是从他身上的自然的东西,转换过程成为欲望的半个外来的,摇摆的支持,通过法则的这个驻居。凭借这个法则的驻居,这块身体,这磅肉身,将要成为这个抵押。通过这个抵押的东西,他将要被指明,在这个地方,在他必须展示他自己,作为要求界的圈子里的欲望。

5

This transitional passage is what allows us to approach a kind of
equivalence penis phallus, in other words that which as “natural
support” is the place where desire manifests itself as affect, as
bodily feeling, must become, must yield its place to a signifier,
because it is only in relation to a subject and not in relation
to a partial object penis or otherwise, that the word desire can
take on any meaning.

这个转换的过程就是让我们能够接近阴茎与阳具相等的东西。换句话说,作为“自然的支持”的东西,就是欲望展示它自己作为情感的地方,作为身体的感觉的地方。欲望必须将它的位置让步给能指。因为仅有在跟主体的关系,而不是跟部分客体阴茎或其他名称的关系,欲望这个字词才能够具有任何的意义。

The subject demands and the phallus desires
says Lacan, the phallus but never the penis. The penis is only
the instrument at the service of the signifier itself. If it can
be a very indocile instrument it is precisely because as phallus
it is the subject whom it designates and for this to happen the
Other must recognise it as such, must choose it, not in its role
as this natural support but rather in so far as it is as subject
the signifier which the Other recognises from his or her own
place as signifier.

主体要求,而阳具欲望。拉康说,阳具欲望,从来就不是阴茎欲望。阴茎仅是服务能指自身的这个工具。即使它能够是一个非常尽职的工具,那确实是因为作为阳具,它指明的是主体。为了让这个指明发生,大他者必须体认它,作为主体,必须选择它,而不是在它的角色里,作为是自然的支持。相反地,因为它作为主体,大他者体认的能指,从他或她自然的位置,作为能指。

That which differentiates the masturbatory act from coitus on the
plane of Jouissance (they are clearly different but this
difference is difficult to explain physiologically) is that
coitus in so far as both partners have been able to assume their
castration, at the moment of orgasm the subject finds again, not
as some would have it a kind of primitive fusion – there is no
reason after all why the deepest experience of joy (Jouissance)
of which man is capable should be necessarily linked to such a
total regression but on the contrary this privileged moment where
for an instant he attains his identification, ever elusive but
always longed for, where he the subject is recognised by the
Other as object of his deepest desire, but also at the same
moment because of the Jouissance of the other, where he can
recognise him or her as the one who constitutes him as phallic
signifier; at this unique instant demand and desire can
fleetingly coincide, and it is this which gives to the ego this
blossoming of identificatory joy from which Jouissance springs.

区别手淫的行为跟交媾不同的东西,在欢爽的层次,(它们显然不同,但是这个不同从生理上难以解释)。交媾,因为两个伴侣能够担负起他们的阉割,在高潮的时刻,主体再次发现的,并不是如同一些人们所说的原始的融合—毕竟,并没有理由为什么最深刻的欢爽的经验,男人能够的最深刻的欢爽的经验,竟然必须跟如此的完整的退行联接一块。而是相反地,这个具有特权当时刻,有一瞬间,他获得他的认同,永远闪躲,但是总是被渴望的认同,在那里,他作为主体被大他者体认,作为是他最深刻的欲望的客体。而且,同时地,因为大他者的欢爽,在那里,他能够体认他或她,作为是形成他作为阳具的能指的这个他者。在这个独特性的瞬间,要求与欲望能够瞬间地巧合一致。就是这个独特性的瞬间,给予自我这个认同的快乐的开花,欢爽就是从这个认同的快乐产生。

It must not be forgotten however that even though demand and
desire coincide in this moment, Jouissance carries within itself
the source of the most profound dissatisfaction; because if
desire is above all desire for continuity Jouissance is by
definition something instantaneous and it is this which
immediately re-establishes the gap between desire and demand, and
the lack of satisfaction which ensures the ceaselessness of
demand.

可是,我们一定不要忘记,即使要求与欲望在这个时刻巧合一致。欢爽在它自身内部还是带着最深刻的不满足的来源。因为假如欲望,尤其重要地就是对于连续欢爽的欲望,在定义上,是某件瞬间的东西。就是这个东西当下重新建立这个差距,处于欲望与要求之间的差距。满足的欠缺保证要求的永无止境。

But if there are imitations of anxiety there are even more
frequent imitations of Jouissance. This identificatory
situation, source of true Jouissance cannot occur if one or both
partners has remained fixated to the partial object, locked in a
dual situation in which they as subjects have no place: since
what is demonstrated by everything linked to castration is that
it expresses not so much the fear that the penis will be cut off,
even if this is how the subject verbalises it, as the fear that
it will be left to him and that everything else will be cut off;
that this penis, this partial object source of pleasure is
resented, he will be denied and not accorded recognition as
subject. This is why anxiety is closely related to Jouissance,
and why one of the most anxiety provoking of situations is the
subjects confrontation with the Other at this level.

但是,即使有焦虑的许多模拟,甚至还有更经常的欢爽的模拟。这个对于真实的欢爽的认同的情境与来源无法发生,假如两位伴侣,或其中一位伴侣始终专注于部分客体,被锁住于双重的情境。在那个双重的情境,他们作为主体,并没有一席之地。因为所被展示的东西,凭借每一样跟阉割息息相关的东西。那就是,它表达的东西,并不是阴茎将会被切割的恐惧。这个阴茎,快乐的这个部分客体的来源,被怨恨著,他将会被否认,而不是给予体认,作为主体。这就是焦虑跟欢爽息息相关的原因。其中一个最引起焦虑的情境之一就是:主体在这个层次跟大他者的冲突。

If we look at the problems encountered by the subject at this
level we see that they represent nothing less than the sources of
all anxiety. In order to discuss these we must refer to the pre
genital modes of relating to objects, to this all important
moment in the subject’s life where the mediation between the
subject and the Other between demand and desire takes place
around this very ambiguously defined object which is called the
partial object.

假如我们观看在这个层次,主体遭遇的这些难题,我们会看见,这些难题代表的实实在在就是一切焦虑的来源。为了讨论这些难题,我们必须提到跟客体相关的前-性器官的模式。跟主体的生命的这个非常重于的时刻相关的前-性器官的模式。在那里,主体与大他者之间的中介,处于要求与欲望之间的中介发生,环绕这个定义非常暧昧的客体,它被称为是部分客体。

The relation of the subject to this partial
object is nothing other than the relation of the subject to his
own body. This primary relationship which is fundamental for
every human being is the point of departure and the mould for
everything that can be included in the term object relation.
Whether the oral, anal or phallic phase is discussed the same
coordinates will be encountered. If I choose the oral phase it
is because for the psychotic who will be discussed further on
this appears to be the fruitful moment for what I have elsewhere
called the moment of the inauguration of the psychosis.
How shall we define it?

主体跟这个部分客体的关系,实实在在就是主体跟他自己的身体的关系。对于每个人,这个原初的关系是基本的,是出发点及这个模型,用客体关系的这个术语能够被包含在内的一切的模型。无论是口腔,肛门,或阳具的部分被讨论到,这些相同的座标将会被遭遇到。假如我选择口腔时期,那是因为对于精神病者,关于这点,他将会进一步被讨论。精神病者似乎是具有成果的时刻,因为我在别的地方所谓的精神病的开始的时刻。我们如何来定义它呢?

By a demand which from the start is a
demand for something else. And by a response which is not only
and obviously a response to something else but is, and this seems
to me a very important point, that which constitutes a cry, a
call perhaps, as demand and as desire. When the mother responds
to the baby’s crying she recognises it, constituting it as
demand, but more importantly she interprets it on the plane of
desire: the child’s desire to have her near, to take something
from her, to attack her or whatever.

我们用要求来定义它。从一开始,要求就是对于某件其他东西的要求。我们也用回应来定义它。回应不仅是,而且显而易见是对于某件其他东西的回应。但是,我觉得,这个回应是非常重要的点,形成一种呼唤的东西,或许是作为要求,作为欲望的呼唤。当母亲回应婴孩的哭喊,她承认它,将它构成作为要求。但是更加重要地,她解释它,根据欲望的层次:小孩的欲望母亲靠近,为了从母亲那里获得某件东西,为了攻击她,或是其他事情。

What is certain is that by
her response the Other confers the dimension of desire on the cry
of need and that this desire with which the child is invested is
always at the beginning the result of a subjective
interpretation, a function of maternal desire only, of maternal
phantasy. In this way through the unconscious of the Other, the
subject enters the world of desire; he will have to constitute
his own desire first of all as response; as either acceptance or
refusal of the place designated for him in the unconscious of the
Other.

确定的事情是,凭借母亲的回应,大他者将欲望的维度赐予在需要的哭喊。小孩被投注的这个欲望总是在开始时,就是主体的解释的结果,仅是对母亲的欲望的功能,对于母亲的幻想的功能。以这种方式,通过大他者的无意识,主体进入欲望的世界,主体将必须形成他自己的欲望,首先作为回应,作为要将是接纳,要不就是拒绝,被指明给予他的位置,在大他者的无意识里。

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

癔症研究06

May 15, 2015

癔症研究06
IV
第四章

THE PSYCHOTHERAPY OF
HYSTERIA 257
癔症的心理治疗

(FREUD)
弗洛伊德

258 IV. PSYCHOTHERAPY OF HYSTERIA (FREUD)

After I had in this way fixed the simple pictures of neur-
asthenia, anxiety neurosis and obsessional ideas, I went on to
consider the cases of neurosis which are commonly included
under the diagnosis of hysteria. I reflected that it was not right
to stamp a neurosis as a whole as hysterical because a few
hysterical signs were prominent in its complex of symptoms.
I could well understand this practice, since after all hysteria
is the oldest, best-known and most striking of the neuroses
under consideration; but it was an abuse, for it put down to the
account of hysteria so many traits of perversion and degeneracy.

用这种方式,我曾经修正神经衰弱症,焦虑神经症与妄想症的观念的这些简单的画面。我继续考虑神经症的个案。这些个案共同地被包括在癔症的诊断之下。我反思到,这是不正确的,将神经症印作为整体记为癔症。因为有些的癔症的症兆非常强烈,在它的征状的情结。我能够清楚地理解这是实践,因为毕竟癔症是我们考虑中的最古老,最著名,与最引人注意,的神经症。但是这是浮滥使用。因为它将许多的倒错与堕落行径的特征,都归属于癔症的描述。

Whenever a hysterical sign, such as an anaesthesia or a char-
acteristic attack, was found in a complicated case of psychical
degeneracy, the whole condition was described as one of
‘hysteria’, so that it is not surprising that the worst and the
most contradictory things were found together under this label.
But just as it was certain that this diagnosis was incorrect, it
was equally certain that we ought also to separate out the vari-
ous neuroses; and since we were acquainted with neurasthenia,
anxiety neurosis, etc., in a pure form, there was no longer any
need to overlook them in the combined picture.

每当癔症的症兆,譬如麻痹或特征的侵袭被发现,在心灵堕落的复杂个案里,整个的情况就被描述作为“癔症”的情况。所以,这并不令人惊奇,在这个标签之下,最糟糕与最悖论的事情被找到。但是,正如这个诊断确实是不正确的,我们同样确实地,也应该将各色各样的神经症区分开来。因为我们对于脑神经衰弱症,焦虑神经症,等等,耳熟能详。处于纯粹状态时,不再有任何需要以这个联合的画面忽视它们。

The following view, therefore, seemed to be the more prob-
able one. The neuroses which commonly occur are mostly to
be described as ‘mixed’. Neurasthenia and anxiety neuroses are
easily found in pure forms as well, especially in young people.
Pure forms of hysteria and obsessional neurosis are rare; as a
rule these two neuroses are combined with anxiety neurosis.

因此,以下的观点似乎是更加有可能的观点。普遍发生的神经症大部分应该被描述作为“混合”。脑神经衰弱症与焦虑神经症很也很容易以纯粹的形状被找到。特别是在年轻人身上。癔症与妄想神经症的纯粹形式则是罕见。通通,这两种神经症跟焦虑神经症混合一块。

The reason why mixed neuroses occur so frequently is that their
aetiological factors are so often intermixed, sometimes only
by chance, sometimes as a result of causal relations between the
processes from which the aetiological factors of the neuroses
are derived. There is no difficulty in tracing this out and de-
monstrating it in detail. As regards hysteria, however, it fol-
lows that that disorder can scarcely be segregated from the
nexus of the sexual neuroses for the purposes of study, that as a
rule it represents only a single side, only one aspect, of a
complicated case of neurosis, and that it is only in marginal
cases that it can be found and treated in isolation. We may
perhaps say in a number of instances: a potion Jit denominatio
[i.e. it has been given its name from its more important
feature].

为什么神经症如此经常发生的理由是,它们的病因的因素如此经常被互相混合。有时仅是偶然地互相混合。有时则是由于过程之间的因果关系,神经症的病因因素从这些过程的因果关系演变而来。要追溯这个因果关系然后详细地描述它,并没有任何困难。可是,关于癔症,跟随而来的是,为了研究目的,那个疾病几乎无法跟性的神经症的联接区隔开来。通常,它代表仅是单一方面,仅是神经症的个案的一个层面。仅有在边缘的个案里,神经症才能够孤立起来发现与治疗。我们或许在许多病例里这样说:部分由主要部分命名。

I will now examine the case histories that have been reported
here, with a view to seeing whether they speak in favour of
my opinion that hysteria is not an independent clinical entity.

我现在将检视曾经被报导过的个案历史。为了看出它们是否支持我的意见:癔症并不是独立的临床实体。

Breuer’s patient, Anna O., seems to contradict my opinion
and to be an example of a pure hysterical disorder. This case,
however, which has been so fruitful for our knowledge of
hysteria, was not considered at all by its observer from the
point of view of a sexual neurosis, and is now quite useless for
this purpose. When I began to analyse the second patient, Frau
Emmy von N., the expectation of a sexual neurosis being the
basis of hysteria was fairly remote from my mind. I had come
fresh from the school of Charcot, and I regarded the linking of
hysteria with the topic of sexuality as a sort of insult just as
the women patients themselves do.

布鲁尔的病人,安娜奥,似乎跟我的意见相牴触,似乎是纯粹癔症疾病的典范。可是,就我对于癔症的知识而言,这个个案的成果始终如此丰盛,观察者根本就不是从性的神经症的观点来考虑这个个案。就这个目的而言,这个个案是无用的。当我开始分析第二位病人,弗劳 艾米,性的神经症的期待作为癔症的基础,压根儿就不存在我的心里。我刚从查科特大学毕业,我将癔症跟性的议题联接一块,作为是一种侮辱,如同这些女性病人自己也这样认为。

When I go through my notes on this case to-day there seems to me no doubt at all that it must be looked on as a case of severe anxiety neurosis
accompanied by anxious expectation and phobias an anxiety
neurosis which originated from sexual abstinence and had be-
come combined with hysteria. Case 3, that of Miss Lucy R.,
can perhaps best be described as a marginal case of pure hysteria.
当我今天翻阅我对于这个个案的笔记,我觉得根本无可置疑的是,这个个案必须被认为是严重的焦虑神经症的的个案。,伴随着焦虑的期待与恐惧,这是一种起于性的节制的焦虑神经症,跟癔症联接一块。第三个个案,露西小姐的个案,或许最能够被描述,作为是纯粹癔症的边缘的个案。

It was a short hysteria which ran an episodic course
and had an unmistakable sexual aetiology, such as would cor-
respond to an anxiety neurosis. The patient was an over-mature
girl with a need to be loved, whose affections had been too
hastily aroused through a misunderstanding.

那是简短的癔症,周期性的发作,并且拥有无可错误的性的病因学,如同会对应于焦虑神经症的病因学。病人是过度成熟的女孩,拥有被爱的需要。她的情感一直过分匆促地被唤起,由于误解。

The anxiety
neurosis, however, did not become visible, or it escaped me.
Case 4, Katharina, was nothing less than a model of what I
have described as ‘virginal anxiety 5 . 1 It was a combination of
anxiety neurosis and hysteria. The former created the symp-
toms, while the latter repeated them and operated with them.
Incidentally, it was a case typical of a large number of neuroses
in young people that are described as ‘hysteria’. Case 5, that of
Fraulein Elisabeth von R., was once again not investigated as
a sexual neurosis. I was only able to express, without con-
firming it, a suspicion that a spinal neurasthenia may have
been its basis [p. 175, footnote].

可是,这种焦虑神经症并没有被看见,或者我没有看见。个案4,卡萨琳娜,实实在在就是我曾经描绘的“处女的焦虑”。那是焦虑神经症与癔症的组合。前者创造征状,而后者重复这些征状,并且运作这些征状。意外地,这是许多神经症的典型的个案,在被描述为“癔症”的年轻人们身上。而且,个案5,阿立萨贝斯并没有被研究作为性的神经症。我仅是能够表达一种怀疑,没有证实它:脊柱的脑神经衰弱可能是它的基础。

I must add, though, that in the meantime pure hysterias
have become even rarer in my experience. If it was possible
for me to bring together these four cases as hysterias and if in
reporting them I was able to overlook the points of view that
were of importance as regards sexual neuroses, the reason is
that these histories date some distance back, and that I did not
at that time as yet submit such cases to a deliberate and
searching investigation of their neurotic sexual foundation.

尽管如此,我必须补充说,同时,在我的经验里,纯粹癔症始终是更加罕见。假如我可能将这四个个案聚拢一块,作为是癔症。假如当我报导它们时,我能够忽略关于性的神经症的非常重于的观点。原因是,这些个案历史回溯有段距离。在当时,我还没有将这些个案,根据它们的神经症的性的基础,从事审慎而探索的研究。

And if, instead of these four, I did not report twelve cases whose
analysis provides a confirmation of the psychical mechanism
of hysterical phenomena put forward by us, this reticence was
necessitated by the very circumstance that the analysis revealed
these cases as being simultaneously sexual neuroses, although
certainly no diagnostician would have refused them the name
of hysteria. But an elucidation of these sexual neuroses would
overstep the bounds of the present joint publication.

假如我没有报导12个个案,而不仅是这四个个案,它们的分析供应我们提出的癔症现象的心理机制的证实,这种沉默是有必要的,因为这个情况,精神分析显示这些个案,作为同时又是性的神经症的情况。虽然确实没有诊断,当时能够拒绝给予它们癔症的这个名称。但是对于这些性的神经症的阐述,会跟目前的联合出版的边界重叠。

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