Archive for June, 2015

Identification 218

June 24, 2015

Identification 218
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

9.5.62 XIX 11
The next time I will not only have to return to it, but to show
you something which I have no reason to make a mystery of
beforehand, because after all if some of you want to prepare
yourselves for it, I am indicating to them that I will speak
about another type of surface defined as such and purely in terms
of surface, whose name I already pronounced and which will be
very useful for us. This is called in English, where the works
are the most numerous, a cross-cap, something which means
something like a bonnet croise. It has been translated into
French on certain occasions by the term mitre, with which
effectively it may have a rough resemblance.

下次,我将必须回头谈论它,而且必须跟你们显示某件东西。我没有理由预先将那个东西弄成神秘。因为毕竟,假如你们一些人们想要准备面对这个神秘。我正在跟他们指示,我将会谈论另外一种表面,被定义为表面,纯粹是用表面的术语。它的名称,我已经宣布,对于我们,那将会是非常有用。在英文,这个名称被称为“交叉帽”,因为英文的著作数量最多。“交叉帽”是某件意味着像是交叉软帽的东西。它已经被翻译成为法文,在某些的场合,用“mitre”这个术语,有效地,它具有粗略的相似。

This form of topologically defined surface involves in itself
certainly a purely speculative and mental attraction which, I
hope will not be lost on you. I will take care to give you
figurative representations of it which I have done in great
quantity, and especially from the angles which are not the ones
of course from which it interests mathematicians or in which you
will find them represented in some works about topology. My
(13) figures will preserve all their original function, while
accepting that I do not give them the same usage and that it is
not the same things that I was looking for.

拓扑图形被定义为表面的这个形式,本身牵涉到确实是纯粹沉思与精神的吸引力。我希望这个吸引力在你们身上还没有失落。我将小心翼翼,给予你们对于这个吸引力的想像的再现,我曾经大量地这样做。特别是从那些角度。这些角度跟数学家感到興趣的角度并不一样。或是跟你们发现被代表,在关于拓扑学的某些著作的角度并不一样。我的图形将会保存所有它们的原初的功能。另一方面,接受,我并没有给予它们相同的用途,我正在寻找的东西并不相同。

You should know however that what it is a matter of forming in a
tangible, sensitive fashion, is designed to involve as a support
a certain number of reflections and others which are subsequently
expected, your own on this occasion, to involve what I might call
a mutative value, which will allow you to think out the logical
things with which I began in a different fashion which does not
keep them moored for you to the famous Eulerian circles.

可是,你们应该知道,问题是要如何形成,用具体,敏感的方式。它被设计牵涉到某些数量的反思,作为支撑。还有一些反思随后也被期望。在这个时刻,你们自己的反思,牵涉到我所谓的转换的价值。这个转换的价值让你们能够思考出这个逻辑的东西。我用这些逻辑的东西开始,用不同的方式,这个方式并没有保存它们锚定,为了让你们,跟这个著名的尤勒圆圈。

Far from this interior field of the eight being obligatorily and
forever an excluded field, at least in a topological shape, a
very tangible fact and one of the most representable and the most
amusing of cross-caps in question, in so far as far from this
field being a field to exclude, it is on the contrary to be
completely kept.

根本就不是这个“8”的内部的领域,它根本就不是强迫地永远是一个被排除的领域。至少在拓扑图形里,这是一个非常具体的事实。受到质疑的其中一个最能够被代表,最有趣的交叉帽。这个领域根本就不是一个排除的领域。相反地,它完整地被保存。

Of course we should not allow this to go to our heads. There
would be a quite simple way of imagining it in a way that should
be held onto. It is not very difficult. You only have to take
something which has a more or less appropriate shape: a slack
circle and, twisting it in a certain fashion and folding it, to
have in front a little tongue whose bottom would be in continuity
with the rest of the edges. Only there is all the same the
following: namely that this is never anything but an artifice,
namely that this edge is effectively always the same edge.

当然,我们不应该让这个领域前进到我们脑海。将会有一个非常简单的方式来想像它。用一个应该被坚持的方式。这个并不困难。你们只要拿某件东西,具有相当合适的形状的东西,一个鬆散的圆圈,然后用某种方式扭转它,折叠它,这样,你们会拥有一个小舌头在前面。这个小舌头的底端将会跟其余的边缘连续起来。只是,仍然会有以下方式:换句话说,这从来不是别的,这就是巧计。也就是,这个边缘有效地总是相同的边缘。

This indeed is what is in question: it is a question of knowing
very differently whether this surface makes a case for us which
finds itself intuitively, aesthetically symbolised. Another
possible import of the signifying limit of the field marked out
is realisable in a way that is different and in a way immediately
obtainable through the simple application of the properties of a
surface which you are not used to up to the present. This is
what we will see the next time.

这确实是受到质疑的东西。问题是要以不同方式知道,这个表面是否对于我们形成一个案例。这个案例发现它自己直觉地,美学地被象征。这个领域的成为能指的限制的另外一个可能的意义,被标识出来。这个可能的意义能够被体会,用不同的方式,用当下被获得的方式,通过一个表面的各种属性的简单的应用。迄今,你们还没有习贯的表面。这就是我们下次将会看见的东西。

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

Ethics 66

June 24, 2015

Ethics 66
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Das Ding (II)
物象

THE C0MBINATOIRE OF THE VORSTELLUNGEN
意象的组合
THE LIMIT OF PAIN
痛苦的极限
BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS
感觉与意识之间
THE INTERSAID OF VERNEINUNG
“否认”的内部命令
MOTHER AS DAS DING
母亲作为物象

3
The whole function of that which Freud articulates in the term superego,
Uberick, is tied to the reality principle. And this would be no more than a
banal play of words, if it were merely an alternative way of designating what
has been called the moral conscience or something similar.

弗洛依德在“超我”这个术语表达的东西的整个的功能,跟现实原则息息相关。这将仅是老生常谈,假如那仅是一个替代的方式来指明所谓的道德良心或某件类似的东西。

Freud gives us a completely new theory by showing us the root or psychological
operation of something that in the human constitution weighs so heavily
on all those forms of which there is no reason why we should misunderstand
any, including the simplest, namely, that of the commandments and, I would
even say, the ten commandments.

弗洛依德给予我们一个完全新的理论。他跟我们显示某件东西的心理运作的根源。在人类的心理构造,这个东西如此沉重地压迫在所有那些形式上,对于那些形式,没有理由我们竟然会误解。包括最简单的形式,戒律的形式,我甚至说,十戒的形式。

I will not avoid discussing these ten commandments that we might assume
we know all about. It is clear that we see them functioning, if not in ourselves,
at least in things in a singularly lively way. It will, therefore, perhaps
be appropriate to look again at what Freud articulates here.

我将不避免讨论这十戒,我们可能认为我们对它们耳熟能详。显而易见,我们看见它们发挥功能,即使不是在我们自己身上,至少是在以独特性生动的方式的事情。因此,。这或许是恰当的,再次观看弗洛依德在此的表达。

What that is, I will put in the following terms, terms that all the commentaries
seem designed merely to make us forget. As far as the formation of
morality is concerned, Freud contributes what some call the discovery and
others the affirmation, and I believe is the affirmation of the discovery, that
the fundamental or primordial law, the one where culture begins in opposi
tion to nature, is the law of the prohibition of incest – nature and culture
being precisely distinguished in Freud in a modern sense, that is to say, in
the way in which Levi-Strauss might articulate them today.

我将会用以下的术语表达,那是什么?所有的评论似乎被设计,仅是为了让我们忘记的这些术语?就道德的形成而言,弗洛依德贡献有些人所谓的发现与还有些人们所谓的肯定。我相信,那是对于发现的肯定。基本的原始的法则,在这个法则那里,文化开始,处于跟自然对立。那就是乱伦的禁忌的法则。自然与文化—在弗洛依德那里,用现代的意义区别出来。换句话说,用列文 李维斯陀今天可能表达的方式。

The whole development of psychoanalysis confirms it in an increasingly
weighty manner, while at the same time it emphasizes it less and less. I mean
that the whole development at the level of the mother/child interpsychology
– and that is badly expressed in the so-called categories of frustration, satisfaction,
and dependence – is nothing more than an immense development of
the essential character of the maternal thing, of the mother, insofar as she
occupies the place of that thing, of das Ding.

精神分析的整个发展肯定它,用越来越沉重的方式。同时,它越来越不强调它。我指的是,母亲-小孩的互相心理学的层次的整个的发展—在所谓的挫折,满足,与依赖的范畴,那种发展表达得很糟糕。那仅仅就是母亲的物,母亲的基本特性的巨大的发展,因为她佔据那个物象das Ding的位置。

Everyone knows that its correlative is the desire for incest, which is Freud’s
discovery. There is no point in affirming that it is to be found somewhere in
Plato, or that Diderot spoke of it in Rameau’s Nephew or The Supplement to
Bougainville’s Voyage. That is of no interest to me. What is important is that
there was a man who at a given historical moment stood up to affirm: “That’s
the fundamental desire.”

众所周知,它的相关因素是对于乱伦的欲望。这是弗洛依德的发现。在柏拉图的某个地方,它就能够被找到,或是狄特罗在“拉繆的侄儿”或“柏嘉维尔航行补记”等书提到它,这样的肯定是没有意义。我对它们没有興趣。重要的事情是,有一个人在特定的历史的时刻,站起来肯定说:「那就是基本的欲望」。

And we must grasp this thought firmly in our hand. Freud designates the
prohibition of incest as the underlying principle of the primordial law, the
law of which all other cultural developments are no more than the consequences
and ramifications. And at the same time he identifies incest as the
fundamental desire.

我们必须坚定地将这个思想掌握在我们的手中。弗洛依德指明这个乱伦的禁忌,作为是原始的法则的基础原则。所有的其他文化的发展仅仅就是这个法则的各种结果与分枝。同时,他辨明乱伦,作为是基本的欲望。

Claude Levi-Strauss in his magisterial work no doubt confirms the primordial
character of the Law as such, namely, the introduction of the signifer
and its combinatoire into human nature through the intermediary of the marriage
laws, which are regulated by a system of exchanges that he defines as
elementary structures – this is the case to the extent that guidance is given
concerning the choice of a proper partner or, in other words, order is introduced
into marriage, which produces a new dimension alongside that of
heredity. But even when LeVi-Strauss explains all that, and spends a lot of
time discussing incest in order to show what makes its prohibition necessary,
he does not go beyond suggesting why the father does not marry a daughter
– because the daughters must be exchanged. But why doesn’t a son sleep
with his mother? There is something mysterious there.

列文 李维斯陀在他的堂皇的钜作,无可置疑地证实法则本身具有这个原始的特性。换句话说,能指的介绍与其组合,进入人类的天性,通过婚姻法则的中介。婚姻法则受到交换系统的规范,他定义为元素的结构。就是这个情况,甚至引导被给予,关于合适的伴侣的选择。换句话说,秩序被介绍进入婚姻。婚姻创造新的维度,,沿着遗传的维度。但是甚至当列文 李维斯陀解释所有这一切,并且花费许多时间讨论乱伦,为了显示是什么让乱伦的禁忌成为必要。他并没有过分到建议,为什么父亲不跟女儿结婚。因为女儿必须被交换。但是为什么儿子跟母亲睡觉?那里有某件神秘的东西。

He, of course, dismisses justifications based on the supposedly dangerous
biological effects of inbreeding. He proves that, far from producing results
involving the resurgence of a recessive gene that risks introducing degenerative
effects, a form of endogamy is commonly used in all fields of breeding of
domestic animals, so as to improve a strain, whether animal or vegetable.
The law only operates in the realm of culture. And the result of the law is
always to exclude incest in its fundamental form, son / mother incest, which
is the kind Freud emphasizes.

当然,他排除那些理由,以近亲通婚产生危险的生物的影响作物假设的理由。他证明,近亲通婚并没有产生牵涉到退化基因的复活的结果。这个退化基因冒险介绍退化的影响,在家畜的培育的领域,普遍被使用的同品种繁殖的形式,为了改进品质,无论是动物或植物。法则仅是运作中文化的领域。法则的结果,总是要排除乱伦,在它的基本的形式,儿子/母亲的乱伦。那是弗洛依德强调的那种。

If everything else around it may find a justification, this central point
nevertheless remains. If one reads LeVi-Strauss’s text closely, one can see that
it is the most enigmatic and the most stubborn point separating nature from
culture.

假如环绕它的每件其他东西都找到理由,这个中心的要点仍然存在。假如我们仔细地阅读列文 李维斯陀的文本,我们能够看见,这是最谜团,最固执的要点,将自然与文化分开。

And I want to make you stop there. What we find in the incest law is
located as such at the level of the unconscious in relation to das Ding, the
Thing. The desire for the mother cannot be satisfied because it is the end,
the terminal point, the abolition of the whole world of demand, which is the
one that at its deepest level structures man’s unconscious. It is to the extent
that the function of the pleasure principle is to make man always search for
what he has to find again, but which he never will attain, that one reaches
the essence, namely, that sphere or relationship which is known as the law of
the prohibition of incest.

我想要让你们在那里停顿一下。我们在乱伦所发现的东西,本身被定位在无意识的层层,相关于物象,这个das Ding。对于母亲的欲望无法被满足,因为它是这个结束,终结的点,废除要求的整个的世界。那个要求的世界在它的最深层,架构人的无意识。甚至,快乐原则的功能就是要人总是寻求他必须再次找到的东西,但是他将永远不会获得的东西。我们到达这个本质,换句话说,那个领域或关系,众所周知是乱伦的禁忌。

This metaphysical analysis is not worthy of our interest, however, if it
cannot be confirmed at the level of the effective discourse which manages to
put itself at the disposition of man’s knowledge, that preconscious or unconscious
discourse or, in other words, the effective law, or, in other words
again, the famous ten commandments I was speaking about just now.

可是,这个形上学的分析并不值得我们的興趣。假如它无法被证实,在情感辞说的层次。这个情感的辞说成功地将它自己,放置在人的婚姻的性情里。前意识,或无意识的辞说,或换句话说,情感的法则,或者再换句话说,我刚才谈论的著名的十戒。

But are there ten commandments? My goodness, perhaps there are. I tried
to add them up by going back to the source. I took down my copy of Silvestre
de Sacy’s Bible. It is the closest thing we have in French to those versions
of the Bible that have exercised such a decisive influence on the thought
and history of other peoples – in one case, inaugurating Slav culture with
Saint Cyril and, in another, that of the authorized version of the English; one
can say that, if one does not know it by heart, one finds oneself an outsider
among them. We do not have the equivalent of that. But I nevertheless advise
you to take a look at the seventeenth-century version, in spite of its inaccuracies
and mistakes, since it was the version people read, and on the basis of
which generations of clergymen have written and fought over the interpretation
of a given prohibition, both past and present, that is inscribed in its
pages.

但是十戒存在吗?我的天,或许十戒存在。我尝试回溯到来源,增补它们。我拿下我那本赛西版的圣经。那是法文版我们拥有的最靠近圣经的那些版本。圣经的那些版本对于其他民族的思想与历史具有决定性的影响。其中一个情况,它开始斯拉夫文化,以西尼尔圣人。在另外一个文化,英文的被授权的版本的文化,我们能够说,假如我们没有对它倒背如流,我们发现我们自己,在他们之中是一位外来者。我们没有那个文化的相等语。但是,我仍然劝告你们去瞧一下十七世纪的版本,尽管它的不正确与错误。因为它是人们阅读的版本。根据这个版本作基础,好几代的牧师曾经写下并且战斗,为了解释某个特定的禁忌,无论是过去或目前的禁忌,它们被铭记在它的页数里。

I thus took down the text of that Decalogue that God dictated before Moses
on the third day of the third month after the flight from Egypt, in the dark
cloud on Mount Sinai, accompanied by flashes of lightning and the command
to the people not to come near. I must say I would like one day to have
someone more qualified than I to analyze for us the diverse forms that tie
interpretation of these ten commandments have undergone – from the Hebrew
texts to the one in which it appears as the quiet droning of the rhythmic lines
of the catechism.

我因此记下“十日谈”的那个文本,在从埃及逃离出来的第三个月的的第三天,上帝在摩西面前指示,在西奈山的黑暗的云里,伴随着闪电的光亮,与命令,那些人们不要靠近。我必须说,我想要有一天拥有比我更加有资格的某个人,来跟我们分享各色各样的形式,这些形式将这十戒所经历过的解释联接一块—从希伯来的文本,到教义问答的韵律的诗行的安和的灌输,所出现的版本。

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

Ethics 65

June 23, 2015

Ethics 65
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Das Ding (II)
物象

MOTHER AS DAS DING
母亲作为物象

You can see that in this game of Chutes and Ladders, from a certain point
of view Verneinung represents the inverse of Verdrangung, and that there is a
difference of organization between them with relation to the function of avowal.
Let me point out to those for whom this still constitutes a problem that there
is a correspondence between that which is fully articulated at the level of the
unconscious, VerurteUung, and that which takes place at the level pointed to
by Freud in letter 52, in the first signifying signification of Verneinung, that
of Verwerfung.

你们能够看见,在这个蛇梯棋的这个遊戏里,从某个观点,否认代表压抑的倒转。中间有组织的差异,处于它们之间,相关于宣称的功能。让我们跟那些人们指出,对于他们,这依旧成为难题。有一个一致对应处于充分被表达的东西,。处于无意识的层次,否认,与发生在弗洛依德在52封信指向的东西之间。在压抑的首次成为能指的意义,排斥的成为能指的意义。

One of you who shall remain nameless, Laplanche, in a dissertation on
Holderlin that we will, I hope, have the opportunity to discuss here some time, asked himself and asked me, what Verwerfung might be. He wanted to
know if it was the paternal No / Name (Nom-de-pere), as is the case in paranoia,
or the No/Name of the Father (Non-du-pere).3 If that’s what it is,
there are few pathological examples that put us in the presence of its absence,
of its effective refusal. If it is the No / Name of the Father, are we not entering
into a series of difficulties concerning the fact that something is always
signified for the subject who is attached to experience, whether present or
absent, something which for one reason or another and to a variety of degrees
has come to occupy that place for him?

你们其中一位始终匿名,拉普朗奇,在一篇探讨赫德林的论文,我希望我们将拥有这个机会,某个时间,在此探讨。他询问他自己,询问我,“排斥”可能的是什么。他想要知道是否那是父权的否定与命名。如同偏执狂的个案。或是,父亲的否定与命名。假如那就是它的样子,那就没有多少病理的案例让我们处于它的缺席的存在。它的情感的拒绝的存在。假如那是父亲的否定与命名,我们难道不是进入一系列的困难,关于这个事实:某件东西总是被表现所指,针对这位主体,跟精神分析经验连系一块的主体,无论是存在或是缺席。因为某种理由与某个程度,对应他,某件东西逐渐佔据那个位置。

Kailil
语言扼杀了图像交互式的妄想狂症状,妈妈走了不能幻想一个妈妈出现,而应该用缠线板fort/da代替妈妈的存在“缠线板妈妈走了,缠线板妈妈回来了”

雄伯
Of course, the notion of signifying substance cannot fail to create a problem
for an alert mind. But don’t forget that we are dealing with the system
of the Wahrnehmnungszeichen, signs of perception, or, in other words, the
first system of signifers, the original synchrony of the signifying system.
Everything begins when several signifers can present themselves to the subject
at the same time, in a Gleichzeitigkeit. It is at this level that Fort is the
correlative of Da. Fort can only be expressed as an alternative derived from
a basic synchrony. It is on the basis of this synchrony that something comes
to be organized, something that the mere play of Fort and Da could not
produce by itself.

当然,成为能指的物质的观念必然会引起难题,对于一个警觉的心灵。但是不要忘记,我们正在处理“感知符号”的这个系统,或者换句话说,能指的最初的系统,成为能指的系统的原初的共时性。每样东西开始,当好几个能指能够呈现它们自己,同时针对这个主体,处于Gleichzeitigkeit.(虚拟)。在这个层次,Fort就是 Da 的相关。Fort仅能够被表达,作为一个替代物,从基本的共时性。根据这个共时性的基础,某件东西逐渐被组织,这个东西。,光是Fort and Da 的遊戏本身并无法产生。

I have already asked the question here as to what the critical conceivable
minimum is for a signifying scale, if the register of the signifier is to begin to
organize itself. There cannot be a two without a three, and that, I think,
must certainly include a four, the quadripartite, the Geviert, to which Hei-
degger refers somewhere.

在此,我已经询问这个问题,假如这个能指的铭记想要开始组织它自己,对于成为能指的规模,关键的可以构想的最小量是什么?有二,必然会有三。我认为,那确实必须包括一个四,这个四大间隔,海德格在某个地方提到的这个Geviert。

Note that Heidegger’s Fourfold is a perfect schema for the Tower of Babel: while mortals strive to join the earth and sky, the gods undo their efforts by turning their unity into multiplicity.
Graham Harman / Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects

As we will see, the whole psychology of the psychotic
develops insofar as a term may be refused, a term that maintains the
basic system of words at a certain distance or relational dimension. Something
is missing and his real effort at substitution and “significization” is
directed in desperation at that. Let us hope that we will have the opportunity
to return to the problem, along with the remarkable analysis that Laplanche
has given of a poetic experience which displays and which unveils it, and
makes it apparent in a way that is especially revealing, namely, the case of
Holderlin.

我们将会看见,精神病的整个的心理学发展一个术语,因为一个术语可能会被拒绝。这一个术语维持文字的基本系统,在某个距离或相关的维度。某件东西失落,而且,他的真实的努力要替换与具有意义,被绝望地引导。让我们希望,我们将会拥有这个机会回到这个难题,跟着这个引人注意的精神分析。拉普朗奇曾经给予个精神分析,对于一个诗的经验。这个诗的经验展示并且揭示它。并且让它明显表现,採用特别的启示。换句话说,赫德林的情况。

The function of this place is to contain words, in the sense in which contain
means to keep – as a result of which an original distance and articulation are
possible, through which synchrony is introduced, and it is on the foundation
of synchrony that the essential dialect is then erected, that in which the Other
may discover itself as the Other of the Other.

这个位置的功能就是要包含文字。所谓“包含“意味着”保有“。由于这个保有的结果,一个原初的距离与表达是可能的。通个这个距离与表达,共时性被介绍。就是根据这个共时性的基础,这个基本的方言,因此被竖立起来。在这个共时性里,大他者可能发现它自己,作为大他者的大他者。

The Other of the Other only exists as a place. It finds its place even if we
cannot find it anywhere in the real, even if all we can find to occupy this place
in the real is simply valid insofar as it occupies this place, but cannot give it
any other guarantee than that it is in its place.

大他者的大他者仅是存在作为一个地方。它找到它的位置,即使我们无法找到它,在实在界的任何地方。即使我们所能个找到的东西,为了佔有实在界的这个位置,能够自圆其说,仅是因为它佔据这个位置,但是无法给予它任何其他保证,除了就是它在它的位置。

It is in this way that another typology is established, the typology which
institutes the relation to the real. And now we can define this relation to the
real, and realize what the reality principle means.

以这种方式,另外一个拓扑图形被建立。这个拓扑图形开启这个跟实在界的关系。现在,我们能够定义这个跟实在界的关系,并且体会现实原则意味着什么。

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

Heidegger’s Fourfold (das Geviert)
海德格的四方图
We are too late for the gods and too early for Being. Being’s poem, just begun, is man.
— From Thinker as Poet by Martin Heidegger
「我们来不及当众神,而当生命实存又太早。生命实存的诗,刚被开始,就是人。」
–马丁 海德格 (作为诗人的思想家)
“Every man makes a god of his own desire.”
— Virgil
「每个人让他自己的欲望成为神。」

Ethics 63

June 23, 2015

Ethics 63
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Das Ding (II)
物象

THE C0MBINATOIRE OF THE VORSTELLUNGEN
意象的组合
THE LIMIT OF PAIN
痛苦的极限
BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS
感觉与意识之间
THE INTERSAID OF VERNEINUNG
“否认”的内部命令
MOTHER AS DAS DING
母亲作为物象

2
We have now reached the point where we must distinguish the effective articulation
of a discourse, of the gravitation of the Vorstellungen, in the form of
Vorstellungsreprasentanzen of these unconscious articulations. We must examine
what in such circumstances we mean by Sachvorstellungen.

我们现在已经到达这点,我们必须区别辞说的有效表达,“表象”的吸引力,用这些无意识的表达的“表象-再现”。我们必须检查在这些情况里,我们所谓的物表象Sachvorstellungen.是啥意思?

The latter are
to be set in polar opposition to word play, to Wortvorstellungen, but at this
level they go together. As far as das Ding is concerned, that is something else.
Das Ding is a primordial function which is located at the level of the initial
establishment of the gravitation of the unconscious Vorstellungen.
I did not have time last week to make you appreciate how in ordinary
German usage there is a linguistic difference between Ding and Sache.

后者应该被放置于跟文字遊戏的两极对立,跟词表象 Wortvorstellungen 。但是在这个层次,它们一块前进。就物象而言,那是某件其他东西。物象是一个原始的功能,被定位在无意识的表象的引力的最初的建立的层面。上个星期,我没有时间让你们欣赏,在日常的德文的用法,有一个语言的差异,在物象与物之间。

It is clear that in every case they cannot be used interchangeably. And that
even if there are cases where one can use either one, to choose one or the
other in German gives a particular emphasis to the discourse. I ask those who
know German to refer to the examples in the dictionary. One does not use
Sache for religious matters, but one nevertheless says that faith is not jederDas
man Ding – it is not for everybody. Master Eckhart uses Ding to refer to the
soul, and heaven knows that for Master Eckhart the soul was a Grossding, the
biggest of things. He certainly would not use the term Sache.

显而易见地,在每个情况,它们无法交换地被使用。即使是我们能够使用任何一个的情况,选择一个或另外一个,在德文里,给予特殊的强调给辞说。我要求那些懂德语的人们,查证一下字典里的例子。我们并没有使用sache 物,作为宗教的事物。但是我们仍然说,父亲并不是jederDas
man Ding—父亲并不是给每个人。欧哈特大师使用物象Ding,提到灵魂。天晓得,对于欧哈特大师,灵魂是最大的物。他确实不会用Sache 物这个字。

If I wanted to
make you sense the differences by giving you a general measure of the way
in which the use of the signifier breaks down differently in German relative
to French, I would cite this sentence that I was on the point of citing last
time, but that I held back because I am not after all a Germanist, and I
wanted to make use of the interval to test it on the ears of some people whose
mother tongue is German. One could say that “the Sache ist das Wort des
Dinges.” Or, in French, “L’affaire est le mot de la chose (“The affair is the
word of the thing.”)•”

假如我想要让你们理解这个差异,凭借给予你们一般的衡量,能指的使用在德文与法文彼此不同的方式。我想要引述这个句子,我上次即将引用的句子。但是我抑制下来,毕竟我并不是德国人。我想要使用这个休息时间,让某些人们的耳朵测试一下,他们的母语是德语。我们能够说,”the Sache ist das Wort des Dinges.” 或是用法语说,”L’affaire est le mot de la chose (这件事情上物的词。)

It is precisely as we shift into discourse that das Ding, the Thing, is resolved
into a series of effects – in the sense that one can say meine Sache. That
suggests all my kit and caboodle, and is something very different from das
Ding – that thing to which we must now return.

确实是正当我们转换成为辞说时,das ding,这个物象被解决成为一系统的效应。我们能够说,meine Sache。 那暗示我所有的东西,那是某件不同于物象的东西。我们现在必须回到那个物。

You will not be surprised if I tell you that at the level of the Vorstellungen,
the Thing is not nothing, but literally is not. It is characterized by its absence,
its strangeness.

你们将不会大吃一惊,假如我告诉你们,在表象的层面,这个“物”并不是空无。但是实质上,这个物并不存在。这个物的特征就是缺席,它的陌生。

Everything about it that is articulated as good or bad divides the subject in
connection with it, and it does so irrepressibly, irremediably, and no doubt
with relation to the same Thing. There is not a good and a bad object; there
is good and bad, and then there is the Thing. The good and the bad already
belong to the order of the Vorstellung; they exist there as clues to that which
orients the position of the subject, according to the pleasure principle, in
connection with that which will never be more than representation, search
for a privileged state, for a desired state, for the expectation of what? Of
something that is always a certain distance from the Thing, even if it is regulated
by the Thing, which is there in a beyond.

关于这个物的一切被表达,作为好与坏。这一切区分主体,关于这个物,它如此不受压抑地,立即地,被表达,无可置疑,相关于这个相同的物。没有一个好的物与坏的物。而是好坏兼具,然后就是这个“物”。好的物与坏的物已经属于表象的层次,它们存在那里,作为这个线索,定向主体的立场的线索,依照快乐原则,关于仅是再现的东西,寻求特权的状态,寻求被欲望的状态,寻求什么的期望?期望某件跟物有某个距离的东西。即使它被物规范,处于一个超越的那里。

We see it at the level of what the other day we noted were the stages of the
φ system. Here there are Wahmehmungszeichen, here there is Vorbewusstsein,
here there are the Wortvorstellungen, insofar as they reflect in a discourse what
goes on at the level of the thought processes. And the latter are themselves
governed by the laws of the Unbewusst, that is to say, by the pleasure principle.
The Wortvorstellungen, as a reflection of discourse, stand in opposition
to that which is ordered in the Vorstellungsreprasentanzen according to an
economy of words. And in the Entwurf Freud calls these Vorstellungsreprasentanzen
conceptual memories, which is no more than a first approximation of
the same notion.

我们看见它处于这个层次,前天我们注意到的,这个φ 系统的这些阶段。在此,有这些物表象,在此是表象,在此是词表象。因为它们在辞说里反映,在思想过程的层面进行的东西。后者的本身受到无意识法则的统辖。换句话说,受到快乐原则的统辖。这个词表象,作为辞说的反映,跟在表象-再现所被成为秩序的东西处于对立状态。在“否认entwurf”,弗洛依德称这些表象-再现,为观念的记忆。它仅是相同观念的最初的靠近。

At the level of the φ system, that is to say, at the level of what takes place
before the entry into the ψ system, and the crossover into the space of the
Bahnung and the organization of the Vorstellungen, the typical reaction of the
organism as regulated by the neuronic system is avoidance. Things are ver
tneidet, avoided. The level of the Vorstellungsreprasenlanzen is the special site
of Verdrangung. The level of Wortvorstellungen is the site of Verneinung.

在阳具φ 系统的层面,换句话说,在进入这个阳具φ系统之前,发生的事情的层面,以及跨越进入Bahnung的空间之前,表象的组织之前,有机体的典型的反应,受到神经细胞系统的规范,这种反应是避免。事情被避免。表象-再现的层面就是压抑Verdrangu的地点。词表象的层面就是否认Verneinung。

I will stop there for a moment to explain the meaning of a point which is
still a problem for some of you in connection with Verneinung. As Freud
notes, it is the privileged means of connotation at the level of discourse for
whatever is verdrangt or repressed in the unconscious. Verneinen is the paradoxical
way in which what is hidden, verborgen, in the unconscious is located
in spoken, enunciated discourse, in the discourse of Bewusstwerden; verneinen
is the manner in which what is simultaneously actualized and denied comes
to be avowed.

我将暂时停在这里,为了解释这一点的意义,对于你们有些人们,这一点依旧是个难题,关于这个“否认”。如同弗洛依德注意到,这个外延意义的特权的工具,在辞说的层次,对于任何被压抑的东西。“否认”就是这个悖论的方式,隐藏在无意识的东西,用这个方式,被定位在用被言说,被表达的辞说,在意识的辞说:否认是这个方式,既被实践,又同时被否认的东西,逐渐被宣称。

One should continue this study of Verneinung that I have just begun with
a study of the negative particle. Following Pichon’s example, I have already
pointed out here the subtly differentiated use in French of this pleonastic
“ne,” which, as I showed, makes it seem paradoxical when, for example, the
subject enunciates his own fear.

我们应该继续“否认”的这个研究,我刚刚开始用否定分子的研究。遵循皮琼的例子,我已经在此指出这个微妙的差异的使用,在法文,这个多余的“ne”,如同我显示的,让它看起来像个悖论,譬如,当主体表达他自己的恐惧。

We do not say “Je crains qu’il vienne” (“I am afraid he may come”), as
logic would seem to demand, but “Je crains qu’il ne vienne” (“I am afraid he
may [not] come”).2 This “ne” has a floating place between the two levels of
the graph that I showed you how to use, so as to distinguish between the level
of enunciation and the level of the enunciated. By enunciating “I am afraid
that . . .,”1 make it appear both in its reality, and in its reality as a wish -”
… he may come.” And it is here that in French the little “ne” is interposed,
which points to the discordance between the levels of enunciation and of the
enunciated.

我们并没有说,「我恐怕他可能会来」,如同逻辑似乎会这样要求。而是说,「我恐怕他可能不会来」。这个“不”具有一个漂浮的位置,处于我跟你们显示如何使用的的图形的两个层面,为了区别表述的层面与被表述的层面。凭借表述「我恐怕、、、」,我让它既出现在它的现实,又出现在它作为愿望“他可能会来”的现实。就在这里,在法文,这个小小的“不”被插入。这指向这个不协调,处于表述与被表述之间的不协调。

The negative particle “ne” only emerges at the moment when I really speak,
and not at the moment when I am spoken, if I am on the level of the unconscious.
And I think it is a good idea to interpret Freud in a similar way when
he says that there is no negation at the level of the unconscious. Given that
immediately afterwards, he shows us that there is indeed negation. That is to
say, in the unconscious there are all kinds of ways of representing negation
metaphorically. There are all kinds of ways of representing it in a dream,
except, of course, for the hide negative particle “ne,” because the particle
only belongs to discourse.

“不”的这个负面因素,仅有在当我确实言说时刻出现,而不是当我被言说的时刻。假如我处于无意识的层次。我认为这是个好主意,用相同的方式解释弗洛依德,当他说:在无意识的层面,没有否定。假如考虑到,随后当下,他跟我们显示,确实有否定存在。换句话说,在无意识里,有各种的方式来隐喻地代表否定。有各种的方式在梦里代表它,当然,除了这个表面的否定分子“不”。因为分子仅是属于辞说。

The concrete examples show us the distinction that exists between the
function of discourse and the function of speech.

这些具体的例子跟我们显示这个差别,存在于辞说的功能与言说的功能之间的差别。

Thus the Verneinung, far from being the pure and simple paradox of that
which presents itself in the form of a “no,” isn’t just any old “no.” There is
a whole world of no-saying (non-dit), of interdiction (interdit), since it is in
that very form that the Verdrangt, which is the unconscious, essentially pre-
sents itself. But the Verneinung is the most solid beachhead of that which I
would call the “intersaid” (entre dit) in the same way that we say “interview.”
One might just as easily explore a little common usage in the sphere of the
language of love, in all that is said when, for example, one says, “I do not say
that. • .”or quite simply in the way people express themselves in Corneille:
“No, I do not hate you.”

因此,这个否定根本就不是这个纯粹而简单的悖论,用一个“不”的形式呈现它自己的悖论。它并不仅是任何古老的“不”。祈使的“说不”数量很多,因为就是在这个形式里,这个无意识的否认,基本上呈现它自己。但是这个否定是最坚个的滩头堡。我称它为“互相言说”。就像我们说“採访interview”。我们可以同样容易地探索在爱的语言的范围里,一些共同用法。在所有的被说的东西里,譬如,我们说:「我没有说、、、」或是,仅是用这个方式,人们表达它自己,在康尼尔那里:「不,我并不恨你。」

Identification 225

June 22, 2015

Identification 225
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

9.5.62 XIX 9

The topological schema that I am going to shape for you and which
consists with respect to what first of all is presented for you
in the shape of the inverted eight, is designed to warn you about
the problematic of any limiting usage of the signifier, in so far
as by it a limited field cannot be identified to the pure and
simple one of a circle. The field marked inside is not as simple
as the one here, as the one which a certain outside signifier
marked.

我正在跟你们塑造的这个拓扑图形的基模,它形成,关于首先被呈现给与你们,用倒转的“8”的形状。这个拓扑图形的基模被设计要警告你们,关于这个能指点任何限制的用途的难题。因为凭借它,一个限制的领域无法被辨认,作为一个圆圈的纯粹而单纯的领域。在内部被标示的领域并不像这里的这个领域那么单纯,像被标示德某个外在能指的这个领域。

There is necessarily produced somewhere, from the fact
that the signifier redoubles itself, is summoned to the function
of signifying itself, a field which is one of exclusion and
through which the subject is rejected into the outside field. I
anticipate and I propose that the phallus in its radical function
is simply signifier, but even though it can signify itself, it is
unnameable as such.

有一个领域必然在某个地方被产生,根据这个事实:能指双重加倍它自己,能指被召唤到成为能指自身的功能。这一个领域是排除的领域。通过这个领域,主体被排除进入外部的世界。我预期,发挥它的强烈的功能的阳具仅是能指,但是即使它能够让它自己成为能指,它无法被命名作为能指。

If it is in the order of the signifier –
because it is a signifier and nothing else – it can be posed
(11) without being different to itself. How can it be conceived
intuitively? Let us say that it is the only name which abolishes
all other nominations and that it is for that reason that it is
unsayable. It is not unsayable because we call it the phallus
but one cannot at the same time say the phallus and continue to
name other things.

假如那是在能指的秩序,因为那时能指,而不是别的东西。它如何能够直觉地被构想?让我们说,这个能指是唯一的名字,废除所有其他的正常化。因为那个理由,这个能指无法被言说。它无法被言说,因为我们称它为阳具。但是我们无法同时说阳具,并且继续命名其他东西。

The final reference point: in our indications at the beginning of
one of our scientific years someone tried to articulate in a
certain fashion the most radical transferential function occupied
by the analyst as such. It is certainly an approach which is not
at all to be neglected that he managed to articulate quite
crudely; and indeed what can it mean that one might feel that it
is rather brazen for the analyst in his function to have the
place of the phallus?

最后的指称点:在我们的指示这我们的科学的岁月的一年的开始,某个人尝试表达,用某种的方式,表达最强烈的移情的功能,精神分析家本身佔据的功能。那确实是一个途径,丝毫不应该被忽略的途径,他成功地相当粗略地表达。的确,那能够意味着什么?为了让我们感觉,精神分析家真是相当厚颜,竟然以其功能,作为拥有这个阳具的地位?

The fact is that the phallus of the Other is very precisely what
incarnates, not the desirable, the eromenos, even though its
function is that of the postman through whom any object
whatsoever may be introduced to the function of object of desire,
but that of desirer, of the eron. It is in so far as the analyst
is the presence which supports an entirely veiled desire that he
is the incarnated “Che vuoi?”

事实上,大他者的阳具确实是具体表现,不是这个被欲望,而是这个性爱的东西。即使它的功能是邮差的功能。通过这位邮差,任何的东西都能够被介绍到欲望的客体的功能。而不这个欲望者的功能,性爱的功能。因为精神分析家就是支持完全被遮蔽的欲望的存在。他就是这位被具体表现的“大他者欲望我什么?”

9.5.62 XIX 10

I will recall later that one can say that the ^ factor of the
phallic value constitutive of the very object of desire is
supported and incarnated by him. But it is a function of
subjectivity so redoubtable, so problematic, so projected into
such a radical otherness, and it is indeed for that reason that I
led you and brought you to this crossroads last year as being the
essential mainspring of the whole question of transference: what
should this desire of the analyst be?

我以后将要提醒,我们能够说,形成欲望的客体的阳具价值的因素,受到精神分析家的支持与具体代表。但是这是主体性的一个功能,如此重复加倍,如此棘手,如此被投射进入如此强烈的他者。确实是因为这个理由,去年,我引导你们,并且带领你们来到这个十字路口,作为是基本的动力,移情的整个的辞说的基本的动力。精神分析家的这个欲望应该是什么?

For the moment what is proposed to us, is to find a topological
model, a transcendental aesthetic model which would allow us to
account at once for all these functions of the phallus. Is there
something which resembles that, which like that is what one calls
in topology a closed surface, a notion which takes on its
function, to which we have the right to give a homologous value,
an equivalent value to the function of significance because we
can define it by the function of the cut. I already referred to
it on several occasions. The cut, I mean with a pair of
scissors, a rubber ball, in order to prevent through habits that
one could qualify as age-old in many cases a crowd of problems
that are posed from immediately striking us.

目前,所跟我们建议的东西,就是要找到一个拓扑图形的模式,一个超验的美学的模式。这个超验的美学的模式将会让我们能够一劳永逸地解释阳具的所有的这些功能。有某件类似那样的东西吗?在拓扑学我们所谓的封闭的表面的东西,一个具有它的功能的东西。我们拥有权利给予它同质性的价值,给予同等的价值给意义的这个功能。因为我们能够定义它,凭借这个切割的功能。我已经提到它,在好几个场合。这个切割,我指的是用一把剪刀的切割,一个塑胶球,为了凭借习惯阻止,我们能够给予特质,作为自古有之,在许多的个案,那是一大堆的难题,会被提出,从我们立即对它们有印象开始。

When I thought I was telling you very simple things in connection
with the interior eight on the surface of the torus, and when
subsequently I unrolled my torus believing that it was selfevident,
that I had a long time ago explained to you that there
was a way of opening the torus by cutting it with a scissors and
when you open the torus crossways you have an open belt, the
torus is reduced to that (see the schema) and it is enough at
that moment to try to project onto this surface the rectangle
which we would have done better to call the quadrilateral, to
apply onto it what we have designated previously in this form of
the inverted eight in order to see what happens and to what
something is effectively limited, something can be chosen,
distinguished between a field limited by this cut and, if you
wish, what is outside, something which is not so obvious, does
not immediately strike us.

当我想到,我正在告诉你们非常简单的东西,关于这个内部的“8”,在圆环面的表面。当随后我展开我的圆环面,相信,那是不证自明的,我很久以前就已经跟你们解释,有一个方法展开这个圆环面,凭借用一把剪刀切割它。当你们横切方式展开这个圆环们,你们拥有一个开放的腰带。这个圆环面被化简到那样(请参照这个基模)。在那个时刻,光是尝试将这个长方形投射进入这个表面,就足够了。我们本来最好是称它为四边形,将我们先前设计的东西应用到它上面,用这个倒转的“8“的形式。为了看出发生什么事情,某件东西有效地被限制到那里,某件东西能够被选择,被区别,在被这个切割限制的领域,与属于外部的东西之间,不妨这样说,有某件并不是那么明显的东西,我们对它并不见得立即有印象。

Nevertheless, this little image that I represented for you seems
in the first shock to have created problems for certain people.
It must be therefore that it is not so easy.

可是,我跟你们代表的这个小小的意象,在初次接触时,似乎对某些人们会引起难题。因此那是一定的情况,这个意象并不那么容易。

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

Ethics 60

June 22, 2015

Ethics 60
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Das Ding (II)
物象

THE C0MBINATOIRE OF THE VORSTELLUNGEN
意象的组合
THE LIMIT OF PAIN
痛苦的极限
BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS
感觉与意识之间
THE INTERSAID OF VERNEINUNG
“否认”的内部命令
MOTHER AS DAS DING
母亲作为物象

Thus, even pain must not be simply attributed to the register of sensory
reactions. I would say, and this is something that the surgery of pain reveals,
that it is not a question of something simple, which can be considered a
simple quality of sensory reaction. The complex character of pain, the character
that, so to speak, makes it an intermediary between afferent and efferent,
is suggested by the surprising results of certain operations, which in the
case of some internal illnesses, including some cancers, allow the notation of
pain to be preserved, when the suppression or removal of a certain subjective
quality has been effected, which accounts for the fact that it is unbearable.
All this belongs to the sphere of modern physiological research, and it does
not yet allow us to explain the problem fully. I will, therefore, limit myself
to suggesting that we should perhaps conceive of pain as a field which, in the
realm of existence, opens precisely onto that limit where a living being has
no possibility of escape.

因此,即使痛苦也一定不要被归属于感官与反应的铭记。我不妨说,这是痛苦的外科手术揭露的东西。这并不是简单的东西的问题。它能够被认为仅是感官与反应的特征。痛苦的复杂的特性,也就是,让痛苦成为这个中介的特性,处于传入afferent 与传出efferent 之间的特性,由某些手术的令人惊奇的结果显示出来。在某些的内部的疾病的案例,包含某些的癌症。这些结果让痛苦的标记被保存下来,当某些的主体的特质被压抑或被移除已经被形成。它们解释这个事实:痛苦是令人无法忍受的。所有这一切都属于现代生理学研究的范围。它还没有让我们能够充分地解释这个难题。我因此将限制我自己,仅是建议,我们或许应该构想痛苦,当著是一个领域,在存在的领域,这个领域开展,确实针对那个限制。在那个限制里,作为活生生的人没有逃避的可能。

Isn’t something of this suggested to us by the insight of the poets in that
myth of Daphne transformed into a tree under the pressure of a pain from
which she cannot flee? Isn’t it true that the living being who has no possibility
of escape suggests in its very form the presence of what one might call petrified
pain? Doesn’t what we do in the realm of stone suggest this? To the
extent that we don’t let it roll,1 but erect it, and make of it something fixed,
isn’t there in architecture itself a kind of actualization of pain?

在达芬妮的神话,这些诗人的洞见难道不是跟我们建议某件东西?在痛苦的压力下,达芬妮被转变成为一颗树,她无法逃离的这个痛苦。这难道不是真实的吗?这位活生生的人没有逃避痛苦的可能,在痛苦的形式里,它暗示我们所谓的被麻痹的痛苦的存在?在石头的领域,我们的所做所为难道不是就暗示这个?甚至,我们没有让石头滚落, 而是将石头竖立起来,将石头解释成某件固定的东西。在建筑的本身,难道不是存在着痛苦的某种实践?

What happened during the period of the Baroque, under the influence of
an historical movement that we will come back to later, would support this
idea. Something was attempted then to make architecture itself aim at pleasure,
to give it a form of liberation, which, in effect, made it blaze up so as
to constitute a paradox in the history of masonry and of building. And that
goal of pleasure gave us forms which, in a metaphorical language that in itself
takes us a long way, we call “tortured.”

在巴洛克的时期,所发生的事情,在历史运动的影响之下,我们将回头探讨,这将支持这个观念。某件东西当时被企图,为了让建筑本身目标朝着欢乐,给予建筑一种解放的形式。实际上,这个解放的形式让欢乐燃烧起来,为了构成水泥与建筑的历史中的一个悖论。欢乐的这个目标给予我们所谓的“折磨”的各种形式,这是一种隐喻的语言,它引导我们颇有进展。

I hope you will pardon my digression, since it does, in fact, point in the
direction of the themes we will take up again later, in connection with the
man of pleasure and the eighteenth century, and the very style it introduced
into the investigation of eroticism.

我希望你们将会原谅我的离题。因为它确实实际上指向这些主题的方向,我们以后将会再次探讨的主题,关于欢乐的人,与十八世纪,以及它介绍的风格,介绍到色情的研究。

Let us return to our Vorstellungen, and try to understand them now, to
surprise them in their operations, so as to understand what is involved in
Freuthan psychology.

让我们回到我们的“意象”,并且现在尝试理解它们,让它们在它们的运作里,感到惊奇,为了理解在弗洛依德的心理学所牵涉的东西。

The character of imaginary composition, of the imaginary element of the
object, makes of it what one might call the substance of appearance, the
material of a living lure – an appartion open to the deception of an Erscheinung,
I would say, if I took the liberty of speaking German; that is to say,that by means of which the appearance is sustained, but which is also at the
same time an unremarkable apparition – something that creates that Vor, that
third element, something that is produced starting from the Thing. Vorstellung
is something that is essentially fragmented. It is that around which Western
philosophy since Aristotle and φαντασία has always revolved.

客体是想象成分的特性,客体的想象的元素,将它解释为我们所谓的表象的维持,一个活生生的陷阱的材料—开放给予Erscheinung的欺骗的魅影,我不妨说,假如我冒昧地说句德语。换句话说,凭借这个欺骗,这个外表被维持。但是这个欺骗同时也是不引人注意到魅影—某件创造这个vor(词)的东西,那第三元素,某件东西被产生,从这个物象开始。表象是某件基本上是碎片的东西。自从亚里斯多德以来,西方思想总是旋转,绕着这个词表象。

Vorstellung is understood by Freud in a radical sense, in the form in which
it appears in a philosophy that is essentially marked by the theory of knowledge
. And that is the remarkable thing about it. He assigned to it in an
extreme form the character philosophers themselves have been unable to reduce
it to, namely, that of an empty body, a ghost, a pale incubus of the relation
to the world, an enfeebled jouissance, which through the age-old interrogations
of the philosophers makes it the essential feature. And by isolating it in
this function, Freud removes it from its tradition.

“表象”被弗洛依德以强烈的意涵来理解,在这个形式里,表象出现在基本上由知识的理论标识的哲学里。那是关于它的引人注意的东西。弗洛依德用一个极端的形式,指明给它这个特性,哲学家自己始终无法将它化简成为的特性。换句话说,成为空洞的身体,鬼魂,的形式,跟世界的关系是苍白的梦魇的关系,一个羸弱的欢爽。经过几千年来的哲学家的盘问,羸弱的欢爽让它成为是基本的特征。凭借将它孤立出来,用这个功能,弗洛依德将它从它的传统移除。

And the sphere, order, and gravitation of the Vorstellungen, where does he
locate them? I told you last time that if one reads Freud carefully, one has to
locate them between perception and consciousness, between the glove and
the hand.

这个“表象”的范围,秩序与引力,弗洛依德将它们定位在哪里?上次,我告诉你们,假如我们阅读仔细地弗洛依德,我们必须定位它们在感觉与意识之间,在手套与手之间。

It is between perception and consciousness that is inserted that which functions
at the level of the pleasure principle. Which is what precisely? – The
thought processes insofar as they regulate by means of the pleasure principle
the investment of the Vorstellungen, and the structure in which the unconscious
is organized, the structure in which the underlying unconscious mechanisms
are flocculated. And it is this which makes the small curds of
representation, that is to say, something which has the same structure as the
signifier – a point on which I insist.

在感觉与意识之间,在快乐原则的层次发挥功能的东西被插入。那确实是啥东西?这些思想过程,因为它们凭借快乐原则规范这个“表象”的投注,以及无意识被组织的这个结构,作为基础的无意识的机制被聚集的结构。就是这个形成表象的小块状的东西,换句话说,拥有跟能指相同的结构—我坚持的一个点。

That is not just Vorstellung, but as Freud
writes later in the same article on the unconscious, Vorstellungsreprasentanz;
and he thus turns Vorstellung into an associative and combinatory element.
In that way the world of Vorstellung is already organized according to the
possibilities of the signifier as such. Already at the level of the unconscious
there exists an organization that, as Freud says, is not necessarily that of
contradiction or of grammar, but the laws of condensadon and displacement,
those that I call the laws of metaphor and metonymy.

那不仅是“表象”,但是如同弗洛依德后来者相同讨论无意识的文章
Vorstellungsreprasentanz;他因此将“表象”转变成为一个联想而组合的元素。以那种方式,“表象”的这个世界已经被组织,依照能指的自身的各种可能性。那已经是在无意识的层面,存在着一个组织,如同弗洛依德所说的,这个组织未必就是文法的悖论,而是凝缩与替换的法则,我称这些法则为隐喻与换喻的法则。

Why should it be a surprise, therefore, if Freud tells us that these thought
processes that take place between percepdon and consciousness would not
mean anything to consciousness, if they were not transmitted there by the
mediation of a discourse, of that which can be clarified in the Vorbewusstsein,
in preconsciousness? But what does that mean? Freud leaves us with little
doubt; it is a question of words. And we must, of course, situate the Wortvorstellungen
that are involved in relation to our argument here.

因此,这有什么好大惊小怪的?假如弗洛依德告诉我们,思想的过程发生在感觉与意识之间,它们对于意识并没有任何意义。假如它们并没有被辞说的中介传递到那里。在前意识,能够被澄清的东西?但是那会有什么意义?弗洛依德几乎没有怀疑地告诉我们,那是文字的问题。当然,我们必须定位被牵涉的“词表象”,跟我们在此的论点的关系。

Freud tells us this is not the same thing as the Vorstellungen whose thought
processes of superposition, metaphor and metonymy we follow through the
unconscious mechanism. It is something entirely different. The Wortvorstel•
lungen inaugurate a discourse that is articulated on the thought processes. In
other words, we know nothing about our thought processes, unless we engage
in psychology – allow me to say that to make my point more forcefully. We
only know them because we are speaking of something which goes on inside
us, because we are speaking of them in terms that are unavoidable – terms
whose indignity, emptiness and vanity we are also aware of. It is from that
moment when we speak of our will and our understanding as distinct facul
tics that we have a preconscious, and that we are able, in effect, to articulate
in a discourse something of that chattering by means of which we articulate
ourselves inside ourselves, we justify ourselves, or we rationalize for ourselves,
with reference to this or that, the progress of our desire.

弗洛依德告诉我们,这并不是相同的“表象”超级地位的思想的过程,我们遵循的隐喻与换喻,经由无意识的机制。这是某件完全不同的东西。“词表象”开启一个词说,在思想过程被表达的词说。换句话说,我们对于思想过程一无所知,除非我们从事心理学—请容许我那样说,为了让更加有力地表达我的观点。我们仅是知道它们,因为我们正在言谈某件在我们内部进行的东西。因为我们正在言谈它们,用无法避免的术语—我们也知道这些术语的没有尊严,空洞与虚荣。
就是从那个时刻开始,当我们言说我们的意志与我们的理解,作为是区别的能力,我们拥有一个前意识。实际上,用一个辞说,我们能够表达某件那种喋喋不休的东西。凭借这个喋喋不休的东西,我们表达我们自己,在我们的内部里。我们替自己自圆其说,或是我们替自己合理化,关于这点或那点,我们的欲望的进展。

It is definitely a discourse that is involved. And Freud emphasizes that,
after all, we know nothing else except this discourse. That which emerges in
the Bewusstsein is Wahrnehmung, the perception of this discourse, and nothing
else. That is exactly what he thinks.

明确地,这是一个牵涉到的辞说。弗洛依德强调,毕竟,除了这个辞说之外,我们别无所知。在这个“意识”出现的东西是这个辞说的感觉,没有别的。那确实是弗洛德所思维的。

That is why he tends to reject utterly superficial representations or, to use
Silberer’s term, the functional phenomena. There are no doubt in a given
phase of a dream things that represent the functioning of the psyche to us
imagistically – a notable example represents the layers of psychic activity in
the form of the game of Chutes and Ladders. What does Freud say? Involved
here is the production of dreams by a mind given to metaphysics or, in other
words, to psychology, which tends to expand on what the discourse necessarily
imposes on us when we should be trying to distinguish a certain rhythm
in our inner experience. But this representation, Freud tells us, overlooks
that structure, that most profound gravitation, which is established at the
level of the Vorstellungen. And he affirms that these Vorstellungen gravitate,
operate exchanges and are modulated according to laws that you will recognize,
if you have followed my teaching, as the fundamental laws of the signifying
chain.

那就是为什么弗洛依德倾向于排斥这些完全是表面的表象。使用希伯瑞的术语来说,那是功能性的现象。无可置疑地,在梦到特定的词语,想象里对于我们代表心灵的功能的那些东西,一个著名的例子代表各个阶层的心灵的活动,用蛇梯棋的遊戏的形式。弗洛依德说些什么呢?在此牵涉到的是梦的产生,由专注于形上学的心灵产生,换句话说,由专注于心理学。心理学倾向于延伸辞说必然会赋加的东西,当我们竟然尝试要区别某些的韵律,在我们的内在的经验里。弗洛依德告诉我们,但是这些表象忽略了那个结构,最为深奥的引力,这个引力被建立在这个“表象”的层面。弗洛依德肯定,这些表象发挥引力,运作各种改变,并且被调节,依照你们将会承认的法则,假如你们曾经追随我的教学,作为是成为能指的锁链的基本的法则。

Have I managed to make myself understood? It seems to me difficult to be
any clearer as far as this essential point is concerned.

我曾经成功地让我自己被理解吗?就这个基本的要点而言,我觉得要讲得更加清楚是有困难的。

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

Ethics 57

June 21, 2015

Ethics 57
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Das Ding (II)
物象

THE C0MBINATOIRE OF THE VORSTELLUNGEN
意象的组合
THE LIMIT OF PAIN
痛苦的极限
BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS
感觉与意识之间
THE INTERSAID OF VERNEINUNG
“否认”的内部命令
MOTHER AS DAS DING
母亲作为物象

Freud comments somewhere that if psychology succeeded in making some
people anxious, by insisting excessively on the reign of the instincts, it nevertheless
also promoted the importance of the moral agency.

弗洛依德在某个地方评论,即使心理学成功地让人们感到焦虑,由于过度坚持本能作为统辖,心理学仍然提倡道德的代理具有重要性。

This is an obvious truth, one that is confirmed every day in our practice.
Furthermore, we still do not rate highly enough in the world outside the
exorbitant character of the power of the sense of guilt, which is exercised
without the subject’s knowledge. Thus it is that which presents itself in the
massive guise of the sense of guilt that I believe is important to focus on more
narrowly this year. Moreover, it is important to articulate it so as to bring
out the originality, the revolution in thought, that was the effect of the Freuthan
experience in the field of ethics.

这是一个显见的真理。在我们精神分析实践时,这个真理每天都被证实。而且,我们在罪恶感的力量大行其道的外面的世界,我们仍然没有充分高估。因为罪恶感的力量被运用时,主体自己并不知道。因此,罪恶感以大量的伪装来呈现它自己。我相信,罪恶感的力量是很重要的,今年,我们要更加专注地探讨。而且,表达这样的罪恶感是有必要的,为了要揭露思想的这个原创性,这个革命性。那是弗洛依德学派的精神分析经验在伦理学的领域的影响。

1
Last time I tried to show you the meaning in Freuthan psychology of the
Entwurf in connection with which Freud organized his first intuition concerning
what takes place in the experience of the neurotic. I tried, in particular,
to show you the pivotal function that we must accord something which
is to be found in a detour taken by the text. And it is one that it is important
not to miss, especially since Freud picks up on it again in a variety of forms
right to the end. I mean das Ding.

上次,我尝试跟你们显示,在弗洛依德心理学,“规划Entwurf”的意义。关于这个“规划Entwurf”,弗洛依德组织他的最初的直觉,关于在神经症的经验所发生的事情。我特别尝试跟你们显示这个枢纽的功能,我们必须给予这个功能某件东西,根据文本採取的迂迴,能够被找到的东西。这个东西,我们一定不要错过,特别是因为弗洛依德再次探讨它,用各色各样的方式,就是为了这个目的。我指的是”物象“。

Right at the beginning of the organization of the world in the psyche, both
logically and chronologically, das Ding is something that presents and isolates
itself as the strange feature around which the whole movement of the Vorstellung
turns – a Vorstellung that Freud shows us is governed by a regulatory
principle, the so-called pleasure principle, which is tied to the functioning of
the neuronic apparatus. And it is around das Ding that the whole adaptive
development revolves, a development that is so specific to man insofar as the
symbolic process reveals itself to be inextricably woven into it.

就在心灵的世界的组织的开始,逻辑上与年代顺序上,物象都是某件呈现而且孤立自己,作为是陌生的特征。意象Vorstellung的整个的运动的旋转,就是环绕这个陌生的特征。弗洛依德跟我们显示的这个意向Vorstellung ,受到规范的原则统辖,这个所谓的快乐原则。快乐原则跟神经症者的心理机制的功能息息相关。整个的适应的发展的旋转,就是环绕这个“物象“。这一种发展对于人们是如此明确,因为象征的功能揭示自己,作为跟这个物象交织纠缠。

We find das Ding again in the Vemeintmg article of 1925, an article that is
full of ideas and also of questions. It occurs in a formula which we must
assume to be essential since it is placed at the center of the article and is, so
to speak, the crucial enigma. Das Ding has, in effect, to be identified with
the Wieder zu finden, the impulse to find again that for Freud establishes the
orientation of the human subject to the object. Yet you should note that this
object is not even stated. And here we might give its due to a certain textual
criticism, whose attachment to the signifier sometimes seems to take a talmudic
turn. It is remarkable that the object in question is nowhere articulated
by Freud.

我们在1925年的“否认Verneinung的文章,再次发现这个”物象“Das Ding。这篇文章充满各种的观念,也充满各种问题。它发生在一个公式。我们必须认为这个公式非常重要,因为它被放置在文章的中心。所谓的关键的谜团。实际上,这个”物象“必须被辨明说再次找到的这个冲动。对于弗洛依德,这个再次找到的冲动建立人类的主体取向于这个客体。可是,你们应该注意到,这个客体甚至没有被陈述。在此,我们可以给予它应得的地位,对于某些文本的批评。这些文本对于能指的迷恋似乎具有启示的意涵。值得注意的是,受到置疑的这个客体在弗洛依德那里,根本就没有被表达。

Moreover, since it is a matter of finding it again, we might just as well
characterize this object as a lost object. But although it is essentially a question
of finding it again, the object indeed has never been lost. In this orientation
to the object, the regulation of the thread, the Vorstellungen relate to
each other in accordance with the laws of a memory organization, a memory
complex, a Bahnung (that is to say, a facilitator, but also, I would say more
decidedly, a concatenation) whose neuronic apparatus perhaps allows us to
glimpse those operations in a material form, and whose functioning is governed
by the law of the pleasure principle.

而且,因为问题是要再次找到。我们最后将这个客体的特性定为是失落的客体。但是它基本上是再次找到它的问题,这个客体确实从来就没有被失落。在对于客体的这个取向,这个线索的规范,这些“意象“互相关联,依照记忆的组织的各种法则,记忆情结,权宜途径bahnung(也就是说,权宜之计),而且,我不妨更加确定地说,一种连锁状态)。它们的神经症的心理机制,或许让我们能够瞥见那些运作,用材料的形式。它们的功能受到快乐原则的法则的统辖。

The pleasure principle governs the search for the object and imposes the
detours which maintain the distance in relation to its end. Even in French
the etymology of the word – which replaced the archaic “quérir (“to search”)”
– refers to circa, detour. The transference of the quantity from Vorstellung to
Vorstellung always maintains the search at a certain distance from that which
it gravitates around. The object to be found confers on the search its invisible
law; but it is not that, on the other hand, which controls its movements. The
element that fixes these movements, that models the return – and this return
itself is maintained at a distance – is the pleasure principle. It is the pleasure
principle which, when all is said and done, subjects the search to encounter
nothing but the satisfaction of the Not des Lebens.

快乐原则统辖对于客体的追寻,赋加这个迂迴,维持跟它的目标的距离的迂迴。即使在法语,这个字的词源,它取代“追寻”的古字”quérir “—它提到“circa”迂迴。数量从“意象”转移到“意象”,总是维持这个追寻,在某个距离,距离它环绕旋转的东西。能够被找到的客体,给予这个追寻它的隐形的法则。但是另一方面,它并不是控制它的运动的东西。固定这些运动的元素,模仿这个回转的元素。这个回转的本身被维持在某个距离。这就是快乐原则。当一切被说被做之后,这个快乐原则将寻求隶属于遭遇到仅是这个“迫切状态”的满足。

Thus the search encounters in its path a series of satisfactions that are tied
to the relation to the object and are polarized by it. And at every point they
model, guide and support its movements according to the particular law of
the pleasure principle. This law fixes the level of a certain quantity of excitation
which cannot be exceeded without going beyond the limit of the Lust/
Unlust polarity – pleasure and unpleasure are the only two forms through
which that same and single mode of regulation we call the pleasure principle
expresses itself.

因此,这个寻求在它的途中遭遇一系列的满足,这些满足跟被寻求视为极端的客体的关系息息相关。在每个时刻,它们模仿,引导,并支持它的运动,依照快乐原则的特殊的法则。这个法则固定某些数量的興奋。每当这些固定数量的興奋被超过时,它就会跨越过快乐/不快乐的极端的限制。快乐与不快乐是仅有的两个形式,通过这两个形式,我们所谓的快乐原则的规范的相同模式表达它自己。

The admission of quantity is regulated by the width of the channels that
do the conducting, by the individual diameters that a given organism can
support – the thing is expressed metaphorically by Freud, but it is almost as
if we were to take it literally. What happens once the limit is exceeded? The
psychic impulse is not as such capable of advancing any further toward what
is supposed to be its goal. Instead it is scattered and diffused within the
psychic organism; the quantity is transformed into complexity. In a kind of
expansion of the lighted zone of the neuronic organism, here and there in the
distance, it lights up according to the laws of associative facilitation, or constellations
of Vorstellungen which regulate the association of ideas, unconscious
Gedanken, according to the pleasure principle.

数量的容许程度受到各种管道的广度的规范。一个特定的有机体能够维持的个人的直径所操控的各种管道。弗洛依德用隐喻表达的物象,但是看起来好像我们想要将它实质看待。一旦这个限制被超过,会发生什么事情?心灵的冲动本身并不能够更进一步前进,朝向被认为是它的目标的东西。代替的,心灵的冲动被散布,被扩散在心灵的有机体之内,数量被转移成为复杂。神经的有机体的被照亮的地区的扩展,在远处的各处,心灵的冲动闪亮起来,依照联想的权宜之计的法则,或是“意象”的集结。它们规范各种观念的联想,无意识的联想,依照快乐法则。

The limit has a name. It is something more than the Lust/Unlust polarity
Freud speaks of.

这个限制有个名称。这个限制的东西,不仅仅是弗洛依德谈论的快乐/不快乐的两极的东西。

I would have you note that it is avoidance, flight, movement, which in the
beginning, even before the system starts to function, normally intervenes in
order to regulate the invasion of quantity in accordance with the pleasure
principle. And it is to the motor system that the function of regulating the
bearable or homeostatic level of tension for the organism is handed over in
the end. But the homeostatis of the nervous system, which is the site of
autonomous regulatory mechanism, is distinct from the general homeostasis
(with all the potential for conflict that that implies), the homeostasis which
activates the balance of moods. The balancing of moods occurs, but as an
order of stimulation arising from within. That is how Freud expresses it.
Certain stimulations come from within the nervous system, and he compares
them to external stimulations.

我想要你们注意到,这是一种避免,逃避,运动。在开始时,即使在系统开始发挥功能之前,这一种避免,逃避,运动就会介入,依照快乐原则。最后,对于有机体,规范紧张的的可忍受度,或体内平衡的层面的功能,被移交给这个动力系统。但是神经系统的体内平衡,这个系统是自动自发的规范机制的地点,它不同于一般的体内平衡(具有那个暗示的冲突的潜力),触动各种心情平衡的体内平衡。各种心情的平衡会发生,但是作为因为内部而产生的刺激的秩序。那就是弗洛依德表达它的方式。某些的刺激来自神经系统的内部。他将这些刺激跟外部的刺激比较。

I would like us to stop for a moment at this limit of pain.

针对痛苦的极限,我想要我们大家暂时停顿一下。

Those commentators who collected the letters to Fliess consider that Freud
slipped up by using the term motorisch, motor, instead of secretorisck, cell,
nucleus, organ. I once said that it did not seem to be clear that it was such a
slip. Freud tells us, in effect, that in the majority of cases, the reaction of
pain derives from the fact that the motor reaction, the flight reaction, is
impossible. And the reason for this is that the stimulation, the excitation,
comes from within. Consequently, it seems to me that this so-called slip is
only present in order to point to the fundamental homology between the
relationship of pain and the motor reaction. Besides – this idea occurred to
me a long time ago, and I hope you will not find it absurd – in the organization
of the spinal marrow, the neurons and axons of pain coexist at the same
level and at the same spot as certain neurons and axons of the tonic motor
system.

那些收集给弗利斯的信件的评论者,认为弗洛依德口误,因为他使用“动力”这个术语,而不是“细胞”“细胞核”“器官”。我有次说,是否是口误,似乎并不那么清楚。实际上,弗洛依德告诉我们,在大多数的个案,痛苦的反应从这个事实获得:动力的反应,逃避的反应,是不可能的。这样说的理由是,刺激,興奋,都来自内部。结果,我觉得,这个所谓的口误存在,仅是为了指向这个基本的同质性,痛苦与动力反应的关系之间的同质性。除外—很久以前,我想到这个观念,我希望你们将不会觉得那是荒谬。在脊柱骨髓的组织,神经细胞与痛苦的神经枢纽共同存在于相同的层面,相同的地点。作为肌腱动力系统的某些神经细胞与神经枢纽。

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

Ethics 54

June 20, 2015

Ethics 54
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV Das Ding
第四章:物象
SACHE UND WORT
物表象与词表象
NIEDERSCHRIFTEN
记录
NEBENMENSCH
沉默他者的物象
FREMDE
陌生感

Das Ding is that which I will call the bey on d-of-the-signified. It is as a
function of this beyond-of-the-signified and of an emotional relationship to it
that the subject keeps its distance and is constituted in a kind of relationship
characterized by primary affect, prior to any repression. The whole initial
articulation of the Entwurf takes place around it. Let us not forget that
repression still posed a problem for Freud. And everything that he will subsequently
say about repression, in its extraordinary sophistication, can only
be understood as responding to the need to understand the specificity of
repression compared to all the other forms of defense.

“物象“是我所谓的”所指“的”超越“的东西。作为所指的超越与情感跟它的关系的功能,主体保持它的距离,并且主体被形成,用原初的情感表现特征的一种关系。这个原初情感早先于压抑。”蓝图设计 Entwurf“的整个的最初的表达,环绕着它发生。让我们不要忘记,对于弗洛依德,压抑依旧形成一个难题,具有特别的精致,仅能够被理解,作为是回应这个需求,理解压抑的明确性的需要,跟所有的其他形式的防卫比较起来。

It is then in relation to the original Ding that the first orientation, the first
choice, the first seat of subjective orientation takes place, and that I will
sometimes call Neuronenwahl, the choice of neurosis. That first grinding will
henceforth regulate the function of the pleasure principle.

因此,就在跟原初的“物象“的关系,最初的取向,最初的选择,主体的取向的最初的位置发生。我将有时称它为”神经症的选择“。那个最初的磨练因此将会规范快乐原则的功能。

It remains for us to see that it is in the same place that something which is
the opposite, the reverse and the same combined, is also organized, and which
in the end substitutes itself for that dumb reality which is das Ding – that is
to say, the reality that commands and regulates. That is something which
emerges in the philosophy of someone who, better than anyone else, glimpsed
the function of das Ding, although he only approached it by the path of the
philosophy of science, namely, Kant.

我们有待釐清的是,就在相同的地方,某件属于对立的东西,相反的东西与相同的东西组合起来。它也被组织。最后,它以它自己取代“物象“的这个沉默的现实。那是出现的某件东西,在某个人的哲学。这个人比起任何其他人都高明,他瞥见”物象‘的这个功能。虽然他仅是探讨它,凭借科学的哲学的途径,那就是,康德。

In the end, it is conceivable that it is
as a pure signifying system, as a universal maxim, as that which is the most
lacking in a relationship to the individual, that the features of das Ding must
be presented. It is here that, along with Kant, we must see the focal point,
aim and convergence, according to which an action that we will qualify as
moral will present itself. And which, moreover, we will see present itself
paradoxically as the rule of a certain Gut or good.

最后,能够被构想的是,作为纯粹的成为能指的系统,作为普世的公理,作为跟个人的关系最为欠缺的东西,“物象”的这些特征被呈现。就在这里,跟康德一块,我们必须看出这个焦点,目标与汇集。依照这个焦点,目标与汇集,我们将会给予品质作为道德的行为,将会呈现它自己。而且,我们将会看见它呈现它自己,悖论地做完某个”勇气“或”善“的规则。

Today I will simply emphasize this: the Thing only presents itself to the
extent that it becomes word, hits the bull’s eye,2 as they say. In Freud’s text
the way in which the stranger, the hostile figure, appears in the first experience
of reality for the human subject is the cry. I suggest we do not need this
cry. Here I would like to make a reference to something that is more inscribed
in the French than in the German language – each language has its advantages.
The German das Wort, word, is both le mot and la parole in French.

今天,我将仅是强调这点:这个“物象“仅是呈现它自己,它甚至成为”道“,击中靶心,如人们所说。在弗洛依德的文本,这位陌生人,这位具有敌意的人物,在人类主体的现实的第一次经验里出现的就是这个哭喊。我建议,我们并不需要这个哭喊。在此,我想要提到某件东西,更加被铭记在法文,而不是德文的语言里。每个语言都有它的优点。德文的” das Wort“,在法文里,既是le mot (道),又是 la parole(言说)。

The word le mot has a particular weight and meaning. “Mot” refers essentially
to “no response.” “Mot,” La Fontaine says somewhere, is what remains
silent; it is precisely that in response to which no word is spoken. The things
in question are things insofar as they are dumb – some people might object
that these things are placed by Freud at a higher level than the world of
signifiers that I have described as the true moving force of the functioning in
man of that process designated as primary. And dumb things are not exactly
the same as things which have no relationship to words.

“道”具有特殊的份量与意义。“道”基本上提到“没有回应”。蒙泰因在某个地方说过,“道”就是始终保持沉默的东西。确实是,没有道能够被说出,为了回应它。受到质疑的这些东西,都是因为它们保持沉默的东西。有些人们可能反对说:这些东西被弗洛依德放置在较高层面,比起能指的世界,我曾经描述,作为是在人身上,被设计为原初性的那个过程的功能的真实的移动的力量。沉默的东西,跟没有文字的关系的东西,并不完全确实相同。

It is enough to evoke a face which is familiar to everyone of you, that of
the terrible dumb brother of the four Marx brothers, Harpo. Is there anything
that poses a question which is more present, more pressing, more
absorbing, more disruptive, more nauseating, more calculated to thrust
everything that takes place before us into the abyss or void than that face of
Harpo Marx, that face with its smile which leaves us unclear as to whether it
signifies the most extreme perversity or complete simplicity? This dumb man
alone is sufficient to sustain the atmosphere of doubt and of radical annihilation
which is the stuff of the Marx brothers’ extraordinary farce and the
uninterrupted play of “jokes”3 that makes their activity so valuable.

我们只要召唤一下你们每个人都耳熟能详的脸孔就足够了。四位马克兄弟中那位糟糕的哑巴弟弟,哈泼。难道还有任何东西,会形成一个更加无所不在,更加迫切,更加吸引人,更加断裂,更加令人作呕,更加被人盘算 要将每样发生在我们面前的东西,抛掷进入深渊,或空无当中?比起这位哈泼 马克的脸孔?那个带着它的微笑的脸孔,让我们感到迷惑,关于它意味着最极端的变态,或是完全的纯洁?光是这位哑巴的人就足够维持怀疑的气氛与强烈毁灭的气氛。那就是马克兄弟的特殊的闹剧的材料与“笑话”的没有中断的运作,让他们的活动如此具有价值。

Just one more thing. I have spoken today of the Other as a Ding. I would
like to conclude with something that is much more accessible to our experience.
And that is the isolated use that French reserves for certain forms of
the pronoun of interpellation. What does the emission, the articulation, the
sudden emergence from out of our voice of that “You!” (Toi!) mean? A “You”
that may appear on our lips at a moment of utter helplessness, distress or
surprise in the presence of something that I will not right off call death, but
that is certainly for us an especially privileged other – one around which our
principle concerns gravitate, and which for all that still manages to embarrass
us.

还有另外一件事情。我今天谈论大他者作为一个“物象”。我想要以某件东西作为结论,这个东西是我们精神分析经验比较容易接近的。那就是法文保留给某些祈使的代名词的用途。从我们的声音发出,表达,突然出现的那个”你“形成什么?一个”你“可能出现在我们的嘴唇,就是完全无助,痛苦,或惊讶的时刻,就在某件东西的面前,我将不立即称它为死亡。但是对于我们而言,那是一个具有特权的他者。环绕这个具有特殊特权的他者,我们主要的关注前进。尽管那样,这个具有特殊特权的他者拥抱我们。

I do not think that this “You” is simple – this you of devotion that other
manifestations of the need to cherish occasionally comes up against. I believe
that one finds in that word the temptation to tame the Other, that prehistoric,
that unforgettable Other, which suddenly threatens to surprise us and to cast
us down from the height of its appearance. “You” contains a form of defense,
and I would say that at the moment when it is spoken, it is entirely in this
“You,” and nowhere else, that one finds what I have evoked today concerning
das Ding.

我并不认为这个“你“是单纯的—专注的这个”你“,需要珍惜的其他展示偶然会遭遇的专注的这个”你“。我相信,在那个字词里,我们发现想要驯服这位大他者的诱惑,那是历史以前,那个难以忘记的大他者,它突然威胁要让我们大吃一惊,并且将我们从它的表象的高处抛掷下。”你“包含一个防卫的形式。我不妨说,当大他者被言说的时刻,它完全在这个”你“里,而不是在别的地方。我们发现,我今天关于”物象“为已经召唤的东西。

So as not to end with something that might seem to you to be so optimistic,
I will focus on the weight of the identity of the thing and the word that we
can find in another isolated use of the word.

为了避免结束时,具有让你们觉得是如此乐观的东西,我将专注于物象与道的认同的份量,在这个词语的另外一个被孤立的用途,我们能够发现的认同的份量。

To the “You” which, according to me, tames, but which tames nothing, a
“You” of vain incantation and fruidess connection, there corresponds what
may happen to us when some order comes from beyond the apparatus where
there lurks that which, along with ourselves, has to do with das Ding. I am
thinking of what we answer when we are made responsible or accountable for
something. “Me!” (Moi!).4 What is this “Me!”, this “Me!” all by itself, if it
is not a “Me!” of apology, a “Me!” of refusal, a “Me!” that’s simply not for
me?

对于这个“你“,依我之见,这个”你“驯服一个白费力气的召唤与徒劳的联接的一个”你“,但是什么也驯服不了。在那里对应可能出现我们面前的东西,当某个秩序从超越这个工具处来临。在那里,潜藏着跟”物象息息相关的东西,跟我们潜藏一块。我正在想到我们回答的东西,当我们被迫要负责,或解释某件事情,替这个“我!”。这个“我!”是啥东西?这个“我!”孑然独立。它难道不就是一个道歉的“我!“,一个拒绝的”我!“,一个就是没有代表我的”我!“?

Thus from its beginning the “I” as thrust forth in an antagonistic movement,
the “I” as defense, the “I” as primarily and above all an “I” that refuses
and denounces rather than announces, the “I” in the isolated experience of
its sudden emergence – which is also perhaps to be considered as its original
decline – this “I” is articulated here.

因此,从它的开始,这个“我“作为从具有敌意的运动中被抛出来,这个作为”防卫“的这个”我“,这个”我“,作为原初而且尤其重要地拒绝与抨击,而非宣告的一个”我“,在它的突然的出现的孤立的经验里的这个”我“。这个”我“或许也应该被认为是它的原初的衰微—这个”我“在此被表达。

I will speak about this “I” again next time in order to explore further the
way in which moral action presents itself as an experience of satisfaction.
December 9, 1959

下次,我将再次谈论关于这点,这个“我”,为了更加深入地探讨道德的行动呈现它自己的方式,作为是满足的经验。

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

Ethics 53

June 19, 2015

Ethics 53
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV Das Ding
第四章:物象
SACHE UND WORT
物表象与词表象
NIEDERSCHRIFTEN
记录
NEBENMENSCH
沉默他者的物象
FREMDE
陌生感

3
Here we come to the notion of the spezifische Aktion of which Freud speaks
on a number of occasions, and that I would like to shed some light on here.
There is, in fact, an ambiguity in the Befriedigungserlebnis. What is sought is
the object in relation to which the pleasure principle functions. This functioning
is in the material, the web, the medium to which all practical experience
makes a reference. How then does Freud conceive of this experience,
this specific action?

在此,我们来到这个观念:在好几个场合,弗洛依德谈论的这个spezifische Aktion。我想要在此有某些启蒙。事实上,在Befriedigungserlebnis 有种的模糊暧昧。所被寻求的东西就是这个客体。快乐原则发挥功能,就是跟这个客体息息相关。这种发挥功能在于物质里,网络里,媒体里,所有的实际的经验都提到它。那么,弗洛依德如何构想这个经验,这个明确的行动?

In this connection one has to read his correspondence with Fliess to appreciate
the significance of it, and in particular that letter referred to above,
which still has a lot to tell us. He says that an attack of hysteria is not a
discharge. It is a warning to those who always feel the need to place the
emphasis on the role of quantity in the functioning of affect. There is no field
more favorable than that of hysteria to suggest to what extent in the concatenation
of psychic events a fact is a question of relative contingency. It is by
no means a discharge, sondern eine Aktion – an action, moreover, which is
Mittel von Reproduktion von Lust.

关于这一点,我们必须阅读他跟弗利斯的信件,为了赏识它的这个意义。特别是以上被提到的信件。这个信件依旧有许多东西要告诉我们。他说,癔症的侵袭并不是发泄。那是一种警告,对于那些总是感觉这个需求,要强调品质的角色,在情感的功能。癔症的领域是最为有利的领域,用来建议,在心灵事件的连续发展里,事实仅是相当迫切性的问题。它根本就不是发泄,而且,它是一种行动,产生繁殖与欲望的行动 Mittel von Reproduktion von Lust.。

We will see how what Freud calls an action is made clear. The essential
characteristic of any action is to be a Mittel, a means of reproduction. In its
root at least it is this: “Das ist er [der hysterische Anfall] wenigstens in der
Wurzel.” And elsewhere “sonst motiviert er sich von dem Vorbewusstsein
allerlei Grunden” – an action may be motivated on all kinds of grounds which
are located at the level of the preconscious.

我们将会看出,弗洛依德所谓的行动如何被表达清楚。任何行动的特性应该成为一种繁殖的工具。至少在它的根源,它是这样:「行动可能被激发,根据各色各样的理由,被定位在前意识的层面的理由。」

Immediately afterwards Freud explains what its essence consists of. And
he illustrates at the same time what an action as Mittel zur Reproduktion means.
In the case of hysteria, of a crisis of tears, everything is calculated, regulated,
and, as it were, focused on den Anderen, on the Other, the prehistoric, unforgettable
Other, that later no one will ever reach.

马上,弗洛依德解释行动的本质由什么组成。他同时解释作为繁殖的行动是什么意思。在癔症的个案,在眼泪的危机的个案,每件事情被估算,被规范,被所谓的专注于它者,前历史的,难以忘记的大他者,后来,没有人将会到达的大他者。

The thoughts we find expressed here allow us to make a first approach to
the problem of neurosis and to understand its correlative or regulatory term.
If one goal of the specific action which aims for the experience of satisfaction
is to reproduce the initial state, to find das Ding, the object, again, we will be
able to understand a great many forms of neurotic behavior.

我们发现在此被表的思想让我们能够首先探讨神经症的这个难题。并且让我们能够理解它的相对或规范的术语。假如明确行动的目标,目的是要朝向满足的经验,那是要繁殖最初的状态,为了找到“物象”,这个客体。而且,我们将能够理解神经症行动的许多形式。

The behavior of the hysteric, for example, has as its aim to recreate a state
centered on the object, insofar as this object, das Ding, is, as Freud wrote
somewhere, the support of an aversion. It is because the primary object is an
object which failed to give satisfaction that the specific Erlebnis of the hysteric
is organized.

譬如,癔症者的行为必须重新创造专注于客体的状态,作为它的目的。因为这个客体,这个“物象”,如同弗洛依德在别的地方所写的,就是一种转向的支持。因为原初的客体是一种没有给予满足的客体,癔症者的明确的事件Erlebnis被组织起来。

On the other hand – this is Freud’s distinction and we don’t need to give
it up – in obsessional neurosis, the object with relation to which the fundamental
experience, the experience of pleasure, is organized, is an object which
literally gives too much pleasure. Freud perceived this clearly; it was his first
apperception of obsessional neurosis.

在另一方面,这是弗洛伊德的区别,我们没有必要放弃这个区别。在妄想症神经症者,基本的经验,快乐的经验,相对应这个客体被组织。这个客体实质上给予太多快乐的客体。弗洛依德清楚地感觉这一点。那是他首次对于妄想症神经症者的观察过程。

What in its various advances and many byways the behavior of the obsessional
reveals and signifies is that he regulates his behavior so as to avoid
what the subject often sees quite clearly as the goal and end of his desire. The
motivation of this avoidance is often extraordinarily radical, since the pleasure
principle is presented to us as possessing a mode of operation which is
precisely to avoid excess, too much pleasure.

在观察的各种进展与许多叉道里,妄想症者的行为揭露并且指明的东西是,他规范他的行为,为了避免主体经常清楚看见作为他的欲望的目标与目的的东西。这种避免的动机经常特别强烈,因为快乐原则被呈现给与我们,作为是运作的拥有的模式。那确实就是要避免过度,太多的快乐。

So as to move fast – as fast as Freud in his first apperceptions of ethical
reality, insofar as it functions in the subject whom he is dealing with – I will
outline the positing of the subject in the third of the major categories that
Freud distinguishes at the beginning – hysteria, obsessional neurosis, and
paranoia. As far as paranoia is concerned, Freud gives us a term that I invite
you to reflect on as it first emerged, namely, Versagen des Glaubens. The
paranoid doesn’t believe in that first stranger in relation to whom the subject
is obliged to take his bearings.

为了要快速移动—如同弗洛依德在他首次对于伦理现实的观察那样快速。因为它在主体身上发挥功能,他正在处理的主体。我将描绘提出主体的轮廓,在主要范畴的第三部分,弗洛依德开始区别—癔症,妄想神经症,与偏执狂。就偏执狂而言,弗洛依德给予我们一个术语,我邀请你们反思这个术语,当它首次出现。那就是,偏执狂并不相信那位首次的陌生人。关于这位陌生人,主体不得不接受他的关联。

The use of the term belief seems to me to be emphasized in a less psychological
sense than first seems to be the case. The radical attitude of the paranoid,
as designated by Freud, concerns the deepest level of the relationship
of man to reality, namely, that which is articulated as faith. Here you can see
easily how the connection with a different perspective is created that comes
to meet it – I already referred to it when I said that the moving force of
paranoia is essentially the rejection of a certain support in the symbolic order,
of that specific support around which the division between the two sides of
the relationship to das Ding operates – as we will see in subsequent discussions.

信仰的这个术语的使用的强调,我觉得,是用比较不是那么心理学的意义,比起这个情况最初的样子。偏执狂者的强烈的态度,依照弗洛伊德指明代,关系到人跟现实的关系的更加深入的层面。换句话说,作为信仰被表达的东西。在此,你们很容易看出,跟前来满足它的一个不同的观点的关系被创造。我已经提到它,当我说,偏执狂者的动人的力量,基本上就是排斥象征秩序的某种支持,排斥明确的支持。环绕这个明确的支持,跟“物象”的关系的两边之间的区分运作起来—如同我们在随后的讨论将会看出。

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

From an other to the Other 36

June 19, 2015

From an other to the Other 36
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan

http://www.lacaninireland.com
11.12.68 V 12

A convergence, then, of this demand and here, something of a promise,
of something that, in S2 is the hope of gathering together this “I”. It is
(69) indeed what in transference I called the subject supposed to know.
Namely, this prime,conjunction, Si linked to S2, in so far, as I recalled
the last time, in the ordered pair, it is it, it is this conjunction, this knot
that grounds what knowledge is.

这种要求的汇集,具有承诺的意涵,某件东西的汇集,在第二能指S2,这是将这个“自我”聚集一块的希望。这确实是在移情时,我所谓的“应该知道的主体”。换句话说,这个最先的结合,S1跟S2的连接。如同我上次提醒的,在这个秩序的配对。它就是它,这个结合,作为知识的本质的基础的这个环结。

What does that mean? If this “I” is only tangible in these two
divergent poles, one called what I here am articulating as the ‘‘no”, the
refusal that gives form to the lack of the reply, and this something
different articulated there as s(O), this meaning, what is it? Because is
it not tangible that the whole discourse that I am spinning out to give
the framework of th e ‘T ’ of the questioning from which this experience
is established, is it not tangible that I am pursuing it while leaving
outside, at least up to this point that we have come to here, any
meaning?

那是什么意思?假如这个“我”仅有在这两个分叉的极端是具体的。一个极端是我在此正在表达作为这个“不”,对于回答的欠缺给予形式的拒绝,这个不同的东西在那里被表达作为是S(O),这意味着,那是什么?因为这难道不是具体的吗?我正在提出的整个的辞说,为了给予这个询问的“我”的框架,另一方面,又将任何意义摆放一边,至少直到我们在此到达的时刻。

What does that mean? That after having formed you for long years to
ground, on the differentiation of a linguistic origin, the signifier as
material., from the signified as its effect, I am allowing it to be
suspected, to appear here that some mirage lies at the source of this
field defined as linguistic, the sort of astonishing passion with which
the linguist articulates that what he tends to grasp in the tongue is pure
form, not content?

那是什么意思?漫长的岁月来,我曾经构成你作为能指的材料的基础,根据语言起源的差异化,根据所指,作为它的影响。我现在容许它受到怀疑,为了在此出现,这样某个幻景就位在被定义为语言的这个领域的来源。以这种令人惊奇的激情,语言学家表达他意图要在语言里理解的东西,就是纯粹的形式,而不是内容?

Here I am going to bring you back to this point, that in my first lecture,
I first brought forward before you, and not unintentionally, in the form
of the pot. Nothing, those who are taking notes should know, is
unpremeditated in what one could call, at first sight, my digressions.

在此,我正要引导你们回答这点。在我第一次讲演,我在你们面前首次提出,有点刻意地,用这个陶壶的形式。那些记录笔记的那些人们应该知道,没有一样东西没有预想考虑到,在有人乍然一看所谓的我的离题。

If I name back in an apparently digressive way to the mustard pot, it is
certainly not without reason. And you may remember that I gave a
place to the fact that, in the first forms of its apparition, it is to be
strongly signalled, that there are never lacking, on the surface of this
pot the marks of the signifier itself. Is there not introduced here
something in which the “I” is formulated?

假如我用明显的离题的方式,命名这个芥末壶,那确实是并非没有来由。你们可能记得,我重视这个事实,用它的魅影的最初的形式,这个芥末壶应该强烈地被给予意涵。在芥末壶的表面,这个能指自身的各种标记永远并不欠缺。在此,难道不是有某件东西被介绍?这个“我”被诠释的某件东西?

The fact is that what
sustains the whole of human creation, of which no image has ever
appeared better than the work of the potter, is very precisely to make
this something, the utensil, that pictures for us by its properties, that
pictures for us this image that the language of which it is made – for
where there is no language there is no worker either – that this
language is a content.

事实上,维持人类创造的整体的东西,似乎没有一个意象比陶壶的这个意象更加贴切。那确实就是要让这个某件东西,这个器皿,根据它的属性跟我们描绘的东西,跟我们描绘这个意象,陶壶被形成的意象的语言。因为在没有语言的地方,也不存在着工作者。这个语言就是内容。

It is enough to think for a moment that this very
fabrication is there to introduce the reference to this philosophically
traditional opposition of form and content. It is not for nothing that in
my first introduction of this pot I signalled that where it plays the part
of an accompaniment to death in burial there is put this addition that
properly speaking holes it. It is indeed in effect because its spiritual
principle, its origin in language, the fact is that there is that there is
somewhere a hole through which everything escapes.

我们只要思维一下就足够了。这个构造在那里,是为了介绍这个指称,对于这个哲学的传统的对立:形式与内容。这并非白费力气,在我首次介绍这个陶壶,我意指著,在陶壶扮演在葬礼时伴随到死亡的角色,贴切而言,让陶壶成为空洞的这个附加物被摆放那里。

When it rejoins
at their place those who have gone beyond, the pot for its part also,
finds its true origin, namely, the hole that it was designed to mask in
language. There is no meaning that does not leak away as regards
(70) what a cup contains, and it is quite curious that I made this
discovery that was certainly not made at the moment that I stated this
function of the pot for you.

当陶壶将那些已经超越的人们重新放回原位,陶壶就它本身而言,也找到它自己的真实的起源。换句话说,在语言里,陶壶被设计来遮蔽的这个空洞。关于一个杯子所包容的东西,每个意义总是有些泄漏出去。耐人寻味的是,我的这个发现,并不是我跟你们陈述陶壶的这个功能的时刻,才开始发现。

Searching, my God, in what I usually refer
myself to, namely, in the Bloch et von Wartburg, what is involved in a
pot, I had, as I might say the happy surprise of seeing that this term – as
is testified, it appears, by lower German and Dutch with whom we
share it – is a pre-Celtic term. Therefore it comes to us from afar, from
the Neolithic no less.

我的天,在我通常提到的东西,也就是,这个Bloch et von Wartburg,在陶壶所牵涉的东西,我不妨说,我遭遇这个快乐的惊喜,当我看见,这个术语是前印欧语言的术语,根据查证,我们跟德语与荷兰语同样都有这个术语。因此这个术语从远地来到我们这里,如同来自新石器时代。

But there is better. It is that because of having
this idea, at least to give it a little base, we ground ourselves on these
pots that are found before the Roman invasion, or more exactly as
representing what was established before it, namely, the pots that are
dug up, it appears, in the region of Trier. Bloch et von Wartburg
express themselves as follows: “We see inscribed there the word
Potus”.

但是更加贴切的是,因为拥有这个观念,至少为了给予它一点基础,我们将我们自己的基础,根据在罗马人侵入之前被发现的那些陶壶。或者更加贴切地说,作为是代表在罗马人侵入之前被建立的东西。换句话说,那些被挖掘出来的陶壶,似乎是在特瑞尔地区。Bloch et von Wartburg 表达它们自己如下:「我们看见Potus这个字词被铭记在那里。」

This is enough, for them, to designate the very ancient,
because it is a usage that is at stake, that they indicate that Potus,
hypochoristically, as they put it, can designate the makers. What
matter! The only thing that is important for me is that when the pot
appears it is always marked on its surface by a signifier that it supports.

对于他们,这就足够指明这个古代,因为这是一个岌岌可危的用法,他们指示著,Potus,这个亲密的称呼,如同他们表达它,能够指明那些制作者。有什么关系!就我而言,唯一重要的事情是,当陶壶出现时,它在它的表面上,它总是被它支持的能指所标记。

The pot here gives us this function distinct from that of the subject, in
so far as in the relation to the signifier the subject is not a preliminary
but an anticipation. It is supposed, upokeimenon. It is its essence, it is
its logical definition, supposed, almost induced, certainly, it is not the
support. On the contrary, we can legitimately give to the signifier a
fabricated support and even, I would say, a utensil. The origin of the
utensil in so far as it distinguishes the field of human fabrication is
■ I ‘ •even properly speaking there.

在此的这个陶壶给予我们这个功能,不同于主体的功能。就跟能指的关系而言,主体并不是一个初步,而是一个期待。主体被假设。主体是它的本质,它的逻辑的定义,主体被假设,的确,主体几乎是被引诱,主体并非这个支持。相反地,我们能够合理地给予这个能指一个被建构的支持,甚至是一个器皿,我不妨说。器皿的起源,贴切地说,甚至就是在那里,因为它区别人类的建构的领域。

The meaning as product, this is what serves, and as a lure, to veil from
us what is involved in the essence of language, in so far as, by its
essence, it properly does not mean anything. What proves it is that the
assertion in its essential function is not an operation of meaning and
this indeed is how we analysts understand it. What we are seeking is
what, not from the Other, but outside the Other as such, suspends what
is articulated from the Other, the S2, as outside the field. Here is the
question of knowing what is involved in the subject, and whether this
subject cannot in any way be grasped by discourse; here also is the
justification for what can be substituted for it.

意义作为产品,这就是作为功用的东西,作为一种陷阱,在语言的本质,遮蔽所被牵涉的东西,不让我们看见。因为根据它的本质,贴切地说,语言并没有意涵著任何东西。证明语言的东西是,在语言的基本的功能里的主张,并不是意义的运作。这确实就是我们精神分析家理解它的东西。我们正在寻找的东西,并不是从大他者,而是从大他者自身之外,所悬置的东西,悬置从大他者所被表达的东西。大他者,这个S2,作为这个领域之外。在此的问题是:如何知道主体身上被牵涉到的东西。这个主体是否能够以任何方式被辞说所理解。在此也就是这个理由,为什么能够被用来替代辞说的东西。

The sense of what is involved in castration is balanced with that of
enjoyment. But it is not enough to grasp this relation as assuredly in
what was manifested in a time that is close to us, of something in
which at the same time this scream, need for truth, is an appeal to
enjoyment. It is assuredly not enough to aspire to enjoyment without
hindrances, if it obvious that enjoyment can only be articulated for
every individual — himself included in language and the utensils — can
only be articulated in this register of remainder inherent to one and the
other that I defined as the surplus enjoying. It is here that on 8th of
January we will take up our discourse again.

在阉割时所牵涉的东西的意义,跟享乐的意义互相平衡。但是光是理解这个关系并不足够,作为确实就是在被展示的东西里,在对我们封闭的时刻,某件东西的被展示。同时,这个喊叫,对于真理的需求,就是对于享乐的诉求。这确实是不足够的,仅是渴望没有阻碍的享乐。假如很明显地,仅有针对每个个人,享乐才能够被表达。他自己被包含在语言与这个器皿里。享乐能够被表达,仅有在剩余物的这个铭记里,我定义为“剩余享乐”的这个与他者的本质的剩余物的铭记。

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