拉康:解释的意义

THE MEANING OF INTERPRETATION
解释的意义

In the first sentence of the preface to his ‘Rome Discourse’ Lacan wrote
that the ‘surrounding circumstances’ of his text ‘had some effect on it’
(Lacan 1977e[1953]:30). He ensuingly revealed how the French
psychoanalytic community had recently split following the creation of a
training institute, the official party line preventing him and his followers
from speaking at a formal gathering of francophone psychoanalysts in
Rome.8 According to Lacan the dissension had occurred when certain
members of the French group had tried to impose a series of rigid training
rules, yet a Bulletin of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA)
makes clear that in reality the debate hinged on the incompatibility
between Lacan’s habit of conducting sessions of variable length and the
existing professional standards (Eissler 1954:267–290).

在“罗马辞说”的序言的第一个句子,拉康书写到:他的文本的“周遭的环境”对它具有某些的影响“。拉康随后显示,法国的精神分析的社团最近分裂,跟随着训练的学院的创立之后。官方的学派阻止拉康与他的追随者不能在罗马的讲法语的正式的聚会里演讲。依照拉康的说法,这个异端争议会发生,是因为某些的法国团体的成员曾经尝试赋加一系列的严格的训练的规则。可是,国际精神分析协会的公告澄清:实际上,跟这个争议息息相关的是这个不合谐,拉康的习惯主导长短不一的咨商时间,与现存的专业的标准之间的不和谐。

Lacan’s unruly
behaviour constituted a thorn in the side of many an IPA council member,
the more so that he had apparently promised to abide by the deontological
code without effectively doing so (ibid.: 276).

拉康的粗鲁的行为构成一个眼中钉,在国际精神分析协会的成员的这一边。更加是如此,因为拉康明显地承诺要支持废除本体论的符码,虽然他并没有实际这样做。

In his ‘Rome Discourse’ Lacan minimized the historical controversy
surrounding his idiosyncratic technique in favour of a sustained theoretical
defence of its application, yet the vehemence with which he endorsed
the variable-length session, against the formalism advocated by the
establishment, indicates the issue’s crucial importance within
contemporary psychoanalytic circles. Lacan’s principal argument in
support of variable-length sessions was that the analyst’s manipulation
of time functions as an interpretive intervention in so far as it punctuates
the analysand’s speech. In the first chapter of the ‘Rome Discourse’ he
put it as follows:

在“罗马辞说“,拉康轻视环绕他的怪诞的技术的历史的争论,以赞同用理论持续地辩护他的怪诞的技术的运用。可是,他热烈地替他的长短不一的咨商时间背书。对抗精神分析体制所主张的形式主义。拉康指示这个议题的至关紧要,在当代的精神分析的内圈里面。拉康的主要的论点,支持长短不一的咨商时间,是因为分析家的对于时间的操控,充当是解释的介入。因为它中止分析者的言说。在”罗马辞说“的第一章节,拉康的表达如下:

It is therefore, a beneficent punctuation, one which confers its
meaning on the subject’s discourse. This is why the adjournment
of a session—which according to present-day technique is simply
a chronometric break and, as such, a matter of indifference to the
thread of the discourse—plays the part of a metric beat which has
the full value of an actual intervention by the analyst for hastening
the concluding moments.
(Lacan 1977e[1953]:44)

因此,这是一个有利的中止,赋予它的意义给主体的辞说的中止。这就是为什么咨商时间的中止扮演计时节拍的角色—依照目前的技术,仅是时钟的中止。作为这样的中止,对于辞说的脉络表示漠视。计时节拍扮演的角色,对于分析家的具有实际的介入的充分的价值,因为他可以加快作为结论的时刻。

Further in the text he added that analysands inevitably experience the
analyst’s suspension of the session as a punctuation of their discourse
(ibid.: 98). So if interpreting equals punctuating the analysand’s speech,
suspending the session will have effects similar to those induced by more
traditional forms of interpretation.

在文本里,更加深入地,拉康补充说:分析者无可避免地经验到分析家的悬置咨商时数,作为是他们的辞说的中止。所以,假如解释相等于是中止分析者的言说,悬置咨商时数将会具有影响,类似由更加传统的解释的形式产生的影响。

In Lacan’s view, professional
regulations about analytic time-keeping, such as ‘Every session lasts 50
minutes’, were just arbitrary rules imposed by anonymous authoritarian
bodies on both the analyst and the analysand, depriving the analyst of
the possibility to use the interpretive power of time in a responsible and
calculated fashion to the benefit of the analytic treatment.

从拉康的观点,专业的规范关于时间的长短,譬如“每个咨商时间延续50分钟“,那仅是任意性的规则,被匿名的权威的团体赋加在分析家与分析者身上。这些规则剥夺分析家的可能用时间作为解释的力量,用负责而经过估算的方式,结果有利于精神分析的治疗。

Complying
with a preset working-time is worse than manipulating it, because in the
former case it is impossible to control the effects of the session’s
interruption on the analysand’s condition (ibid.: 99). Partly because Lacan
transformed an agreed professional standard into a flexible technical tool,
partly because his innovation was perceived as stretching the limits of
the analyst’s power over the patient, high representatives of the IPA
considered his practice unacceptable, and refused to give way on this
point when Lacan’s group applied for a new official recognition during
the early 1960s.9

同意目前的工作时间,更加糟糕于操控工作时间。因为在前者的情况,我们不可能控制咨商时间的中断的影响,对于分析者的情况。部分是因为拉康转换一个共识的专业的标准,成为具有弹性的技术性的工具。部分是因为他的创新被感觉是延长分析家的对于病人的权力的限制。国际精神分析协会的高级代表都认为拉康的做法无法被接受。并且拒绝让步,针对这一点。当拉康的团体在1960年代早期,申请新的官方的承认。

Precision is not a liberating factor and conjecture does not pre-empt
rigour, Lacan argued (ibid.: 74, 98). No matter how rebellious to any type
of formalism, he believed that the analysts’ temporal interventions could
be presented in rigorous and unambiguous terms. For the development of
this new clinical formalization, Lacan took his lead from his own theory
of logical time, in which he had distinguished between the ‘instant of the
glance’, the ‘time for comprehending’, and the ‘moment of concluding’,
on the basis of an analysis of the sophism of the three prisoners (Lacan
1988a[1945]).10

拉康主张:准确性并不是解放的因素,推测并没有让严谨松绑。无论对于任何种类的形式主义的反叛,拉康相信,精神分析家的时间的介入能够被呈现,用严谨而不模糊的术语。对于这个新的临床的正式化的发展,拉康从他自己的逻辑时间的理论带头前进。在逻辑时间里,拉康区别“瞥见的瞬间“,”理解的时间“,与”作为结论的时间“,他以三位囚犯的诡辩的分析作为基础。

Because each prisoner’s freedom is dependent upon the
reduction of the time for comprehending, after the instant of the glance,
Lacan averred that the analyst’s suspension of the session should always
be geared towards the precipitation of the moment of concluding and thus
towards the reduction of the time for comprehending (Lacan
1977e[1953]:48).11 This is why, in the above citation, he described the
value of an analytic intervention as hastening the concluding moments.
With their interpretations analysts need to ensure that the amount of time
analysands spend on understanding, brooding and plotting is reduced to a
minimum.

因为每位囚犯的自由依靠理解时间的减少,经过瞥见的瞬间之后,拉康主张,分析家的悬置咨商时间应该总是被发动,朝向结论的时刻的突然来临,因此朝向理解的时间的减少。这就是为什么,在以上的引述里,拉康描述精神分析介入的价值,作为是加速结论时刻的来临。随着他们的解释,分析家需要保证:分析者花费在理解,沉思与计谋的时间的数量,被化减到最小量。

These mental activities are considered counter-productive
because just as in the story of the three prisoners they bar the roads to
freedom.12 To put Lacan’s principle in more psychological terms: through
her interpretations, including the suspension of the session, the analyst
has to facilitate and accelerate decision-making processes in the analysand;
he has to urge the analysand to make decisions about his life in line with
his desire, despite the fact that he does not master all the knowledge
necessary to be sure that these decisions are right.13

这些精神的活动被认为是跟生产相反,因为正如在三位囚犯的故事,他们阻碍了自由之路。用更加心理学的术语来表达拉康的原则:经由她的解释,包括悬置咨商时间,分析家必须方便而且加速做决定的过程,在分析者身上。分析家必须建议分析者从事决定,关于他的生活,以符合他的欲望。尽管这个事实:他并没有掌控所有必要的知识,以便确定,这些决的是正确的。

In Lacan’s conception of the treatment, compressing the time for
comprehending facilitates the moment of concluding because it stimulates
‘the meditation of the subject [the analysand] towards deciding the
meaning [sens] to attach to the original event’ (ibid.: 48).14 A necessary
mediating factor between the analyst’s interventions and the analysand’s
conclusions, the crystallization of meaning is the first corollary of an
appropriate analytic interpretation.15 Lacan accordingly underlined that
psychoanalysis is ‘an action whose effects are entirely dependent on
meaning’ (ibid.: 33).

用拉康的治疗的观念来说,将理解的时间压缩,有利于结论的时刻。因为它刺激主体(分析者)的沉思,朝向决定要跟原初的事件连系一块的意义。在分析家的介入与分析者的结论之间的必要的中介的因素,意义的具体化,就是合适的精神分析的解释的最初的结果。拉康因此强调:精神分析师一个行动,这个行动的结果完全依靠意义。

Yet, against all odds, he also intimated that this
dependency of the analytic effects on meaning does not imply that
analysts are expected to reveal the meaning of their analysands’ symptoms
through their interpretations. The content of the analyst’s interpretations
is not tailored to the meaning of what the analysand is suffering from.
When interpreting the analyst is not supposed to tell the patient what his
symptoms mean.

可是,即使面对不利情况,拉康也主张,精神分析的依靠意义的影响,并没有意味着:精神分析家被期望揭示他们的分析者的症状的意义,通过他们的解释。分析者的解释的内容并没有被附加在分析者的遭受痛苦的内容的意义。当从事解释时,分析家并没有被认为应该告诉病人,他的症状是什幺意义。

During the 1950s, Lacan stressed on numerous
occasions that symptoms are legible and need to be deciphered (Lacan
1977f [1955]:127, 133; 1977g[1957]:159–160; 1977h[1957–58]:184,
194), but this process of exegesis (Lacan 1977e[1953]:70) should not be
read as an activity whereby the analyst discovers or guesses the meaning
of the analysand’s symptoms and offers the results of his quest to the
patient.16 After all, were that to be a requirement it would be difficult to
see how the analyst’s suspension of the session could function as an
interpretation, since these scansions contain not a single meaningful detail
about the patient’s symptoms and life history.

在1950年代,拉康在许多场合强调:症状是可以理解的,并且需要被解释。但是解释学的这个过程,不应该被阅读作为是一个活动,凭借这个活动,分析家发现或猜测分析者的症状的意义,然后提供他的追寻的结果给病人。毕竟,假如那是成为一个要求条件,我们将会很困难看出,分析者的悬置咨商时间,发挥功能作为解释。因为这些审视并没有包含意义的细节,关于病人的症状与一生的历史。

The motive behind this precept revives the contentious relationship
between transference and suggestion I have discussed in the previous
chapter of this book. Despite his insistence on the importance of the
analyst’s exegesis of the patient’s formations of the unconscious Lacan
believed that detailing their meaning has an objectifying and alienating
effect on the analysand. If analysts were to disclose the meaning of the
analysands’ symptoms in their interpretations, they would convey
knowledge about the origin of these symptoms to their patients, implicitly
telling them that as analysts they are capable of understanding the
problems at hand. Long before the introduction of the supposed subject of knowing, Lacan criticized this interpretive style for its suggestive impact.

这个信条的背后的动机,重新唤醒移情与暗示之间的具有争议性的关系。我在本书的先前的章节曾经讨论过。尽管他坚持这个重要性:分析家对于病人的无意识的形成的信念。拉康相信,详细列出他们的意义,具有客观化与疏离的效果,对于分析者。假如分析家想要在他们的解释里,揭露分析者的症状的意义,他们将会传递关于这些症状对于他们的病人的起源的意义。分析家暗示地告诉分析者,作为分析家,他们能够理解手边的难题。在介绍被认为应该知道的主体之前,拉康早就批评过这个解释的风格,因为它具有暗示的影响。

In Seminar I, for instance, he underscored that interpretation,
despite its being predicated upon the action of speech, should not count
as an intellectual activity (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:274). He vilified Anna
Freud’s proposition to use interpretation as a means of educating the ego
for its hidden intellectualist tendencies, which can only be detrimental
to the advancement of the treatment (ibid.: 65–67).17 In ‘Variations of
the Standard Treatment’ he put it even more bluntly:

譬如,在第一研讨班,拉康强调:介入,尽管介入是根据言说的行动来陈述,介入不应该被认为是知识的活动。拉康抨击安娜 弗洛伊德的建议要使用解释,作为是教育自我的工具,以寻找它的隐藏的知识的倾向。这个建议是有害的,对于治疗的进展。在“标准治疗的变化“,拉康甚是更加坦直地表达:

This knowledge [of the analyst] has without doubt much increased
…but one must not pretend to have distanced oneself from an
intellectualist analysis in this way, unless one acknowledges that the
communication of this knowledge to the subject [the analysand] only
functions as a suggestion to which the criterion of truth is alien.
(Lacan 1966b[1955]:337)

分析家的这个知识无可置疑地已经大量增加,但是我们一定不要假装,用这个方式,我们已经让自己跟知识的精神分析保持距离。除非我们承认,这个知识的沟通给主体(分析者),仅是发挥功能,作为是建议。对于这个建议,真理的标准的外来的。

After his conceptualization of the supposed subject of knowing, Lacan
repeated his admonition in the phrase that the analyst is never to identify
with this supposed subject of knowing (Lacan 1961–62: session of 22
November 1961; 1966–67: session of 21 June 1967).18

经过他建构被认为是应该知道的主体的观念,拉康重复他的警告,用这个表达:分析家才从来就不应该认为被认为是应该知道的主体。

In a similar vein, Lacan disqualified all analytic attempts at
understanding the analysand’s problems. ‘To interpret and to imagine
one understands are not at all the same things. It is precisely the opposite’
(Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:73). Two years later, in Seminar III, he stated:
‘It’s always at the point where they [students] have understood, where
they have rushed in to fill the case in with understanding, that they have
missed the interpretation that it’s appropriate to make or not to make’
(Lacan 1993[1955–56]:22). An even more provocative assertion appeared
in Seminar IV, in the context of a discussion of Freud’s case of Little
Hans (Freud 1909b):

以同样的心情,拉康认为所有的精神分析的企图,并没有资格要理解分析者的难题。“解释与想像我们会理解,根本就不同一码事。它们确实是背道而驰。两年以后,在第三研讨班,拉康陈述:「总是在这个时刻,学生们已经理解,他们已经冲进来,要用理解填补这个个案,他们已经错过这个解释,从事这个解释或不从事这个解释,都是合适的。」一个更加挑衅的主张,出现在第四研讨班,在弗洛伊德的“小汉斯”的个案的讨论的内文:

This observation [of Little Hans] unfolds entirely within the register
of misunderstanding. I will add that this is the case with all types
of creative interpretation between two subjects. This is the way
one has to expect interpretation to develop, it is the least abnormal
of all, and it is precisely in the gap of this misunderstanding that
something else will develop, that will have its fecundity.
(Lacan 1994[1956–57]:341)

对于小汉斯的这个观察,完全展开,在误解的铭记的内部。我将补充说,两个主体之间,就各自的创造性的解释,都是这个情况。这就是这个方式,我们必须期望解释发展。这是最没有异常的东西。它确实就在这个误解的差距里,某件其他的东西将会发展,将会拥有它的成果。

Additional comments on the inherent dangers of understanding abound
in Lacan’s seminars from the 1960s and 1970s, and one of the reasons
why he eventually decided to dissolve his own school was that he believed
his pupils to be too convinced that they understood the meaning of his
words.19 As his work progressed, Lacan argued that apart from nurturing
suggestion and proceeding from the analyst’s own fantasies and
prejudices, understanding is a response to the analysand’s demands (to
be understood), whereas these demands need to be maintained (supported,
propped up) and questioned in their signifying structure (Lacan
1991b[1960–61]: 234–235; 1977i[1958]:255).

针对理解的本质上的危险的额外的评论,充斥在拉康从1960年代到1970年代的研讨班。其中一个理由,拉康为什么最后决的解散他自己的学派是,他相信他的学生太过于相信,他们理解他的话语的意义。随着他的研究的进展,拉康主张,除了滋养暗示与从分析家自己的幻想与偏见前进,理解是一种反应,对于分析者的要求(为了被理解)。而这些要求需要被维持,(被支持,被支撑),然后被质疑,在他们的成为能指的结构里。

But how are analysts supposed to interpret then if they ought to avoid
offering meaning, producing knowledge and conveying understanding?
What is left of the classic definition of interpretation as an act of translation
or explanation that facilitates insight into a certain matter through the
revelation of meaning?20 Although he retained the notion of meaning to
represent the proper effect of analytic interpretations, Lacan rejected all
the standard approaches to interpretation and presented an alternative
based on Hindu linguistic philosophy and Zen Buddhism.

但是,精神分析家如何被认为当时是解释,假如他们忘记避免提供意义,产生知识与传递理解?解释的古典的定义作为翻译的行的,剩余什么?或作为解释的行动,方便洞察力进入某个事件,通过意义的启示,剩余什么?虽然拉康保留意义的观念,为了代表精神分析解释的适当的影响,拉康拒绝所有的标准的接近解释的方法,并且呈现一个替代选择,以印度的语言哲学与佛教禅宗作为基础。

Through these two oriental traditions he discovered ‘resonance’ as a new feature of
speech. Due to this characteristic, speakers can say something without
effectively saying it on the level of the statement; they can induce ideas
in the mind of the listener which are the opposite of those included in the
text of the transferred message. This is how Lacan explained ‘resonance’
as an appropriate interpretive tool in his ‘Rome Discourse’:

通过这两个东方的传统,拉康发现“共鸣”,作为言说的新的特征。由于这个特色,言说者能够说某件东西,但是没有有效地说出它,在陈述的层面。他们能够诱导出观念,在倾听者的心里。这些观念是被包含在被传递的讯息的文本里。这是拉康解释“共鸣”的方式,作为合适的解释的工具,在他的“罗马辞说”。

There is…no doubt that the analyst can play on the power of the
symbol by evoking it in a carefully calculated fashion in the
semantic resonances of his remarks. This is surely the way for a
return to the use of symbolic effects in a renewed technique of
interpretation in analysis. In this regard we could take note of what
the Hindu tradition teaches about dhvani, in the sense that this
tradition stresses the property of speech by which it communicates
what it does not actually say. (Lacan 1977e[1953]:82)

无可置疑地,精神分析家能够扮演象征的力量,凭借召唤它,用仔细估算的方式,在他的谈论的语意的共鸣里。这确实就是这个方式,回转到象征的影响的使用,用精神分析里解释的更新的技术。关于这一点,我们能够注意印度传统教导我们的东西,关于dhvani,用这个传统强调言说的属性。凭借这样的言说,它沟通它没有实际说出的东西。

According to Pandey’s Indian Aesthetics, a volume from which Lacan
distilled most of his information on Hindu linguistics, dhvani is the power
of words to invoke something else than what they literally say. Pandey’s
example, which Lacan dutifully copied, runs as follows (Pandey 1950:
219–220; Lacan 1977e[1953]:82).21 A young courting couple agrees to
meet in a secluded garden on the bank of a river.

依照潘帖伊的“印度的美学”,从这一本书,拉康过滤大部分他的资讯,有关印度的语言学。Dhvani是文字的力量,召唤某件其他的东西,除了它们实质所说的内容。潘帖伊的例子,拉康按部就班地抄写,内容如下:一对年轻的求婚的伴侣同意在隐蔽的花园会面,在河流的堤岸。

Waiting for her boyfriend,
the girl notices how a religious man she knows is approaching their hideout.
For obvious she wants the man to disappear as quickly as
possible, yet she does not want to tell him off explicitly. Having decided to
drive him away without showing her true intentions, she says: ‘O religious
minded man! you can now roam freely over this place. For the dog, of
whom you were so afraid, has been killed today by the proud lion, who, as
you know very well, lives in the impervious thicket on the bank of Godavari’
(Pandey 1950:220).

正在等待她的男友时,这位女孩注意到,她认识的一位宗教僧侣正走靠近他们的隐藏处。因为很明显地,她想要这个僧侣尽快地消失。可是,她不想要明确地叫他走开。因为她已经决定要驱赶他走开,但是又不显露她的意图。她说:「哦,宗教心灵的人!你现在能够自由地漫游到这个地方。因为这条狗,你如此地害怕它,今天已经被高傲的狮子杀死。你清楚知道,这只高傲的狮子,居住在浓密的森林里,在高达凡立河的堤岸。

If the man, after hearing the girl’s words, decides to
run off as fast as he can, it is, Pandey argues, ‘because of the negative
meaning understood by him in a positive statement’ (ibid.: 220). In Lacan’s
reading of this passage, the man flees because he hears something the
girl’s words do not actually say. She says ‘You can now roam freely’, but
he hears ‘I need to get out of this place as soon as possible’.

假如这个人,听完女孩的话语后,决的尽快地跑开,潘帖伊主张,那是因为他理解的负面的意义,用正面的陈述。在拉康阅读这个段落时,这个人跑离开。因为他听见女孩的话语没有实际表达出的某件东西。她说:「你现在能够自由地漫游」。但是他听见:「我需要尽可能快速地离开这个地方。」

At the end of his ‘Rome Discourse’ (1977e[1953]:106–107) Lacan
adduced another, slightly different example of the resonances of speech
from the teachings of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, which he had
borrowed from T.S.Eliot’s The Waste Land (1974[1922]).22 When the
threefold offspring of Praja-pati had completed their training in sacred
knowledge with their father, they wanted him to say something. To the
gods (deva) Praja-pati responded with the syllable ‘Da’ and when asked
whether they had understood the gods said: ‘Yes, we have understood.
You said to us “control yourselves” (damyata)’.
在“罗马辞说”的结束,拉康补充另外一个稍微不同的例子,说明言说的共鸣。从“奥义书”的教导里。他从艾略特的“荒原”借用过来。当普拉杰-帕帝的三重后代已经完成他们跟父亲的训练,关于神圣的知识。他们想要他说出某件事情。普拉杰-帕帝回应众神,用这个音节“达”。当众神被问他们是否理解,众神说:「是的,我们已经理解。你跟我们说,控制你们自己“

Upon which Praja-pati
said: ‘Yes, you have understood’. To the men (manusya), Praja-pati replied
with the same syllable ‘Da’ and they too said they had understood: ‘You
said to us “give” (datta). Praja-pati replied: ‘Yes, you have understood’.
Finally, Praja-pati told the demons (asurah) ‘Da’ and they said: ‘We
have understood. You said to us “be compassionate” (dayadhvam)’.
Prajapati said: ‘Yes, you have understood’ (Radhakrishnan 1953:289–291).

听完这话,普拉杰 帕帝说:「你们已经理解。」对这些人们,普拉杰 帕帝回答,用相同的音节,“达“。他们也说他们已经理解。「你对我们说”给予“。普拉杰 帕帝回答:「是的,你们已经理解。」最后,普拉杰 帕帝告诉恶魔”达“,他们说:「我们已经理解。你跟我们说,“要悲悯!」普拉杰 帕帝说:「是的,你们已经理解。」

Like the previous example, this story shows how the addressees understand something the speaker has not actually said. In addition it demonstrates how
each of the three groups attach a different meaning to the same signifier, in
a way that is presumably concomitant with their different status as gods,
men and demons. However, in this example it is unclear what the speaker
wants his listeners to understand. Whilst the girl on the river bank evidently
wanted the religious man to disappear, Praja-pati’s intention remains a
mystery. Or rather it seems that whatever the meaning his children attribute
to his words, he is happy to go along with it.23

就像先前的例子,这个故事显示,被对谈者理解某件言说者并没有实际说出的东西。除外,它证明这三个团体的每一个都附属一个不同的意义,给相同的能指。用的方式被认为是伴随着他们不同的地位,作为众神,作为人,与作为恶魔。可是,在这个例子里,并不清楚的是,言说者想要听者理解什么。虽然河流堤岸的女孩显而易见是想要宗教僧侣消失,普拉杰 帕帝的意图始终是个神秘。或者说,似乎,他的小孩归属于他的话语的意义,他很乐意同意那个意义。

Neither in his ‘Rome Discourse’ nor in any other spoken or written
intervention did Lacan detail the implications of this passage from the
Upanisads for psychoanalytic practice. None the less, it appears to me
that Praja-pati’s response is more indicative of Lacan’s take on the analytic
employment of the resonances of speech during the early 1950s than the
parable of the girl and the religious man. In Pandey’ s illustration of dhvani
the girl knows perfectly well which meaning she wants to imbue the
religious man with, and unless he is stupid he will not hesitate to run.

无论是在他的“罗马辞说“或是任何其他的口说或文字的介入,拉康都没有详细说明从”奥义书“的这个段落的暗示,作文精神分析的实践。仍然地,我觉得,普拉杰 帕帝的回应更加是指示著拉康的从事精神分析的运用言说的共鸣,在1950年代期间。而不是指示著女孩与宗教僧侣的寓言。在潘帖伊的插图版的dhvani,这位女孩完全知道她想要给予宗教僧侣的意义。除非他愚蠢,他将毫不犹豫地跑开。

The girl is betting on the proverb that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind
horse, and if it had turned out that the man needed more than a word to be
wise, it is likely that she would have had recourse to a less subtle tactic for
making him leave. The meaning she wants him to acknowledge is
unambiguous, despite the fact that her words cover this meaning with the
veils of courtesy and modesty. Put differently, she does not want to impose
herself, but her words are nevertheless extremely suggestive.

这位女孩赌信这个格言:对于一匹瞎马,棍子跟眨眼一样有用。假如结果是,这个人需要的不仅是智慧之语,很可能,她本来想要诉诸于比较不那么含蓄的策略,用来让他离开。她想要他承认的意义上清楚明白。尽管这个事实:她的话语掩盖这个意义,用礼貌与谦虚的这个面纱。换句话说,她并不想要赋加自己,但是她的话语仍然极端具有暗示性。

In Praja-pati’s words, the resonances are much more obscure, and he
does not seem to expect his listeners to read his ‘Da’ in a particular way.
One could argue that his eternal wisdom allows him to know that the
three categories of his offspring will hear his ‘Da exactly as he wants
them to hear it. But we do not know whether this is indeed the case.
Perhaps he was sure about the effects of his words, perhaps he had no
intentions whatsoever, perhaps he just wanted his children to gain
understanding, regardless of its nature and consequences. In this respect,
Praja-pati’s intervention is much less suggestive than the girl’s response
to the religious man.

用普拉杰 帕帝的话来说,共鸣是更加模糊。他似乎并没有期望他的听众阅读他的“达“,用特殊的方式。我们能够主张,他的永恒的智慧让他能够知道,他的三个范畴的后代,将会听见他的”达“,确实依照他想要他们听见的。但是,我们并不知道这是否确实就是这个情况。或许,他确的他的话语的影响。或许,他根本就没有意图。或许,他刚刚想要他的小孩获得理解,尽管它的特性与结果。在这方面,普拉杰 帕帝的介入比较没有那么暗示性,比起女孩的回答宗教僧侣。

On the one hand Praja-pati satisfies his children’s
demand to tell them something, but when he starts to talk he does not
really say anything. The meaning of what he says is fleeting; it remains
‘in abeyance’ until it is pinned down by his listeners. This procedure
tallies with the Zen technique Lacan evoked in the opening paragraphs
of Seminar I:

一方面,普拉杰 帕帝满足他的小孩的要求告诉他们某件事情。但是当他开始谈论时,他并没有确实说出任何东西。他说的内容的意义是瞬间的,意义始终处于“悬置“,直到被他的倾听者钉住。这个程序跟禅宗的技巧不谋而合。拉康在第一研讨班的开头的段落,引用的禅宗的技巧:

The master breaks the silence with anything—with a sarcastic remark,
with a kick-start. That is how a buddhist master conducts his search
for meaning, according to the technique of zen. It behoves the students
to find out for themselves the answer to their own questions.
(Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:1)

大师用任何东西打破沉默—用嘲讽的谈论,用提醒。这就是佛教大师从事他对于意义的追寻。依照禅宗的技巧。学生有这个必要自己去找出他们的问题的答案。

Although analytic treatment is by no means a relationship between master
and student, the fact that the Zen-master believes that the students possess
all the knowledge necessary to answer their questions relieves him of
the task to produce that knowledge in a suggestive, objectifying fashion,
bringing his interventions very close to those Lacan described as analytic
interpretations. In sum, the meaning of interpretation, as Lacan conceived
it during the early 1950s, is that it sets meaning in motion on the side of
the analysand whilst being in itself a meaningless intervention.

虽然精神分析的治疗绝非是主人与学生之间的关系,禅宗大师相信:学生拥有所有的必要回答他们的问题的知识的这个事实,让大师免除这项工作,用暗示,客观化的方式,产生那个知识。并且将他的介入非常靠近拉康所描述的那些介入,作为是精神分析的解释。总之,依照拉康所构想的,在1950年代,解释的意义是:它触动意义,在分析者这一边。另一方面,它本身就是没有意义的介入。

The consequence of this approach is that interpreting, as an activity
by which meaning is accorded to a certain event, takes place in the analysand rather than the analyst.24 As Freud put it at the end of ‘On
Beginning the Treatment’, the analyst ‘supplies the amounts of energies’
and ‘shows him [the patient] the paths along which he should direct
those energies’ (Freud 1913c:143), but that is as far as the analyst’s
interventions go. In Lacan’s outlook of the 1950s the analyst supplies a
signifier, which is by its very nature meaningless, and facilitates the
analysand’s (re)integration of that signifier into an already existing series
of signifiers (a circuit of knowledge).

这个方法的结果,解释,作为活动。凭藉这个活动,意义被给予某个事件。发生在分析者,而不是分析家。如同弗洛伊德表达它,在“治疗的开始”,分析家供应大量的能源,并且跟病人显示这些途径。沿着这些途径,他应该引导那些能源。但是就分析家的介入而言,在拉康在1950年代的观点,分析家供应一个能指,这个能指绝非是无意义的,并且方便分析者的重新合并那个能指,进入已经存在的系列的能指(知识的循环)。

Consequently, a new meaning will
arise, which should encourage the liberating ‘moment of concluding’.
In setting out the coordinates of this new interpretive style, Lacan
also attacked the positions of his contemporaries. Despite its prominence
within mainstream psychoanalysis, he repudiated the analyst’s
interpretation of the patient’s ego-resistance, because he was convinced
that it transformed the analytic process into an imaginary struggle between
two parties striving for recognition (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:51).25 For
the same reason he rejected the analyst’s interpretation from ego to ego
in the here-and-now of the clinical setting.

结果,一个新的意义将会产生。这个新意义将会鼓励解放“结论的时刻”。当拉康安排这个新的解释的风格的座标时,他也攻击他的当代人的立场。尽管这个立场这主流精神分析里,占优势。拉康排斥分析家的解释病人的自我的抗拒。因为他相信,解释将精神分析的过程,转化成为想像的奋斗,处于两个伴侣奋斗要获得承认。因为同样的理由,拉康排斥分析家的解释,从自我到自我的解释,在临床的背景的此地此刻。

Taking his lead from a paper
by Margaret Little on countertransference (Little 1951) in which she
reported the instance of an analyst interpreting the analysand’s present
state of mind (a mixture of anxiety, confusion and depression) by referring
it back to the analyst’s own current interests (‘You think that I, your
analyst, am jealous of you’), Lacan argued that the ‘analyst here believes
himself authorised to offer …an interpretation from ego to ego, or from
equal to equal…whose foundation and mechanism cannot in any way be
distinguished from that of projection’ (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:32).26

从探讨小玛格丽特的讨论反-移情开始,在那篇文章里,她报导分析家解释分析者的目前的心灵状态作为例子(混合焦虑,混乱与沮丧),并且凭借回溯到分析家自己的目前的興趣(“你认为我作为分析家是妒忌你)。拉康主张,在此的分析家相信他自己被授权提供从自我到自我的解释,或是从对等者到对等者的解释。他们的基础与机制根本就无法被区别,跟投射的基础与机制。

Because they merely reflect the analyst’s presumptuous use of ‘inside
knowledge’, Lacan opposed even more vehemently all types of
interpretations that circumvent the analysand’s discourse. With biting
sarcasm he declared in ‘Variations of the Standard Treatment’ how it had
become ‘standard’ practice amongst analysts to seek out the analysand’s
truth by interpreting her gait, his grooming, her position on the couch, his
borborygmi, her way of shaking hands, etc. (Lacan 1966b[1955]:337).

因为他们仅是反映分析家的大胆的使用“内部的知识“。拉康甚至更加激烈地反对各种的解释,因为解释绕过分析者的辞说。尖刻嘲讽地,在”标准治疗的变化“,拉康宣称, 解释已经变成是标准的实践,在分析家当中,为了寻求分析者的真理,凭借解释她的态度,她的关注,她在躺椅上的立场,他的腹鸣音,她的握手的方式,等等。

As long as these behaviours operate beyond language, as long as analysands
do not give them a place within their discourse, the meaning ascribed to
them (resistance or compliance, denial or acceptance) simply mirrors the
analyst’s symptomatic use of his alleged clinical expertise. Finally, Lacan
also desacralized the popular idea of moving from ‘surface’ to ‘deep’
interpretations (Fenichel 1941[1938–39]:44–46). In his opinion, the
analysand’s speech is a multilayered surface showing traces of recent as
well as foregone conflicts on each level. Lacan did not believe one had to
remove the dust of everyday life in order to discover the repressed treasures.

只要这些行为运作超越语言,只有分析者并没有给予他们一个位置,在他们的辞说里,被归属于它们的意义(无论是抗拒或是顺从,否认或接受),仅是反应出分析家的症状地使用他被宣称的临床的专业。最后,拉康也亵渎通俗的观念:从“表面“到”深处“的解释。依照他的意见,分析者的言说是多重层面的表面,显示最近与以往的冲突,在每个层面。拉康并不相信,我们必须移除日常生活的灰尘,为了发泄被压抑的财宝。

He did not think the surface to be superficial, nor depth to be hidden beneath
the surface. This is why, in Seminar I, he advised his audience to take up
the study of geology: ‘My dear fellows, you wouldn’t believe what you
owe to geology. If it weren’t for geology, how could one end up thinking
that one could move, on the same level, from a recent to a much more
ancient layer?’ (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:74).27

他并不认为表面就是浮浅,深处也不隐藏在表面之下。这就是为什么,在第一研讨班,他劝告他的听众要从事地质学的研究。「亲爱的听众,你们将不会相信你们归功于地质学的东西。假如不是因为地质学,我们如何作为思维的结论:我们能够移动,在相同的层面,从最近移动到更加古代的层面?」

Lacan’s wrath was as much unleashed by the analysts’ interpretive tactics
as by the inappropriateness of their interpretations. For instance, in his
discussion of Little’s example, he admitted that the analyst’s interpretation
‘hadn’t failed to have some effect, since he [the analysand] had instantly
recovered his spirits’ (ibid.: 31).

拉康的愤怒同样无所忌惮,关于分析家的解释的策略,跟他们的解释的不合宜。譬如,在他讨论小玛格丽特的例子,他承认,分析家的解释并非完全没有某些效果,因为分析者曾经瞬间恢复他的精神)。

The analysand had accepted the analyst’s
intervention, it had effectuated a radical change in his condition and the
analysis had continued for another year. Yet to Lacan the clinical impact
of the interpretation did not prove that it was correct or, better, that it was
a precise evaluation of the source of the analysand’s problems. Little herself
conceded in her article that the interpretation may have been accurate in
terms of the analyst’s feelings towards the patient, but that it did not capture
the essence of the patient’s grief, his acceptance of it having been fostered
by his identification with the analyst (Little 1951:32).

分析者已经接纳分析家的介入,这已经造成强烈的改变,在他的情况。精神分析已经继续又另外一年。可是,对于拉康,这个解释的临床的冲突并没有证明:它是正确的。或者,更加贴切地说,它是准确地评估分析者的难题的来源。小玛格丽特的自己在她的文章里承认:解释可能已经是正确的,用分析家对于病人的感觉的术语来说。但是解释并没有捕获病人的痛苦的本质,他对于痛苦的接受已经被培养,由于他认同分析家。

Having observed that inappropriate interventions can have amazing
clinical effects, Lacan re-read an influential study by Glover on ‘The
Therapeutic Effect of Inexact Interpretation’ (1931) in order to ascertain
the status of true, correct interpretations.28 The most important conclusion
he drew from Glover’s article is that an interpretation can be analytically
correct without conveying the factual reality of an analysand’s condition,
and vice versa.

当拉康观察到,不适当的介入会令人惊奇的林场的影响,他重新阅读格洛维的具有影响力的研讨“论不明确的介入的治疗的影响”。为了确实,真实,正确的解释。最重要的结论,他从格洛维的文章获得的结论是,解释能够是精神分析是正确,但是没有传递实际上的现实,对于分析者的情况,等等。

In Little’s example, the analyst’s interpretation was
incorrect in spite of the fact that it may very well have been an adequate
representation of a present state of affairs. Conversely, Lacan assessed
Freud’s interpretations in the case of the Rat Man as factually inexact,
yet nevertheless correct with regard to the mental condition of his patient
and the overall progress of the treatment (Lacan 1977e[1953]:88;
1977i[1958]: 237).29

在小玛格丽特的例子,分析家的解释是不正确的,尽管这个事实:它很有理由曾经是充分的代表,对于目前的情况。相反地,拉康凭估弗洛伊德的解释,在“鼠人”的个案,作为是事实上是不确实的。可是,它仍然是正确,关于他的病人的精神的情况,与治疗的全面的进展。

To decide whether an interpretation is correct one
should not judge its correspondence with a factual reality. Nor can the
correctness of an interpretation be inferred from its immediate benefits
for the analysand, whether the disappearance of the symptoms, a general
change of attitude, or the emergence of new plans for the future. Hence,
the truth value of an interpretation depends neither on its relationship
with reality, nor on its healing power, even less on the analysand’s
acceptance or refusal.

为了决定解散是否正确,我们不应该判断它的是否跟实际是现实一致。解释的正确也不能够被推论,从它的当下对于分析者的利益,无论症状的消失,态度的一般的改变,或是新计划的出现到未来。因此,解释的真理的价值,既不是依靠跟现实的关系,也不是依靠它治疗的力量,甚至不是依靠分析者的接纳或拒绝。

Volunteering to formulate a different criterion for assessing the truth
(correctness) of an analytic interpretation, and relying on Freud’s exposition
of the topic in ‘Constructions in Analysis’ (1937d), Lacan stated in Seminar
I: ‘I consider the proof of the correctness of an interpretation to lie in the
confirmatory material the subject supplies.

拉康自愿去阐述不同的标准,为了评估精神分析的解释的真理(正确性),并且依靠弗洛伊德的说明这个议题“精神分析的建构”。拉康在第一研讨班陈述:「我认为解释的正确性的证据:在主体供应的证实的材料里说谎」。

And even that needs to be put
more subtly’ (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:31). In ‘The Direction of the
Treatment’ he subsequently confirmed the validity of his own interpretation
when writing that ‘it is not the conviction with which it is received that
matters, since the conviction will be found rather in the material that will
emerge as a result of the interpretation’ (Lacan 1977i[1958]:234). A more
‘subtle’ picture did not emerge until 1966, in Seminar XIV on The Logic of
the Fantasy (1966–67). Here Lacan argued that if an interpretation’s only
effect is the analysand’s production of more material it still falls under the
rubric of suggestion. For interpretations to be correct, he claimed, they
need to have an effect of truth (Lacan 1966–67: session of 14 December
1966; 1970–71: session of 13 January 1971).

甚至,那需要被表达得更加微妙些。在“治疗的方向”,他随后证实他自己的解释的正确性,当他写到,“重要的并不是它被接受的信念,由于解释的结果。直到1966年,一个更加”微妙“的画面才出现。在第14研讨班,”幻见的逻辑“。在此,拉康主张,假如一个解释的唯一的结果,是分析者产生更多的材料,它依旧失败,在暗示的组织下。为了让解释正确,他宣称,它们需要拥有真理的影响。

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

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: