拉康：意义的解释

THE INTERPRETATION OF MEANING

意义的解释

From the mid-1950s Lacan started questioning the nature of meaning as
an effect of psychoanalytic interpretation. Locating the point of departure
for any type of analytic interpretation in The Interpretation of Dreams
(1900a) he insisted that Freud’s discovery of the meaning of a dream
always entails the revelation of the dream(er)’s unconscious wish (Lacan
1998b[1957–58]:319–320). Therefore, the interpretation of dreams and,
by extension, of any formation of the unconscious, is focused on the
emergence of the repressed desire sustaining it.30

从1950年中业，拉康开始询问意义的特性，作为是精神分析的解释的影响。当他定位出发点的位置，作为任何种类的精神分析的解释，在弗洛伊德的“梦的结析”，拉康坚持，弗洛伊德的发现梦的意义，总是涵盖作梦者的无意识的愿望的启示。因此，梦的解析，延伸而言，就是无意识的任何形成的解析，都是以维持这个解析的被压抑的欲望的出现作为基础。

Because Freud had explained dreams, parapraxes and neurotic
symptoms as fulfilments of a repressed wish, Lacan contended that the
formations of the unconscious simultaneously conceal and satisfy a
particular desire, which can only be uncovered via a calculated use of
interpretations (ibid.: 326).

因为弗洛伊德已经解释梦，倒错行为，与神经症的症状。拉康主张，无意识的形成，既隐藏，又满足特殊的欲望。这个欲望仅能够被发现，经有估算地使用解释。

In other words, the meaning of a symptom
correlates with its underlying desire and this motive only becomes
apparent when the symptom has been properly interpreted. If
interpretation can be conceived as a process whereby meaning is accorded
to a certain phenomenon, the interpretation of meaning, the meaning to
be allocated to meaning, is that it coincides with the expression of a
desire. This is why Lacan, in his Seminar VI on Desire and its
Interpretation, portrayed the analyst as somebody who assists analysands
in giving birth to their desire (Lacan 1958–59: session of 1 July 1959).
This is also why he replied to the philosophical question as to the meaning
of meaning (what does meaning mean?) with the statement ‘meaning
escapes’ (Lacan 1975d[1973]:11).31

换句话说，症状的意义跟它的作为基础的欲望息息相关。这个动机变成明显，仅有当症状已经适当地被解释。假如解释能够被构想，作为是过程。在那里，意义被给予某个现象，意义的解释，意义被分配给意义是，它巧合与欲望的表达。这就是为什么拉康，在他的第6研讨班，“论欲望与其解释“，描绘分析家作为某个帮助分析者的人，当他们诞生他们的欲望。这也是为什么他回答哲学的问题，关于意义的意义（”意义“意味着什么？”用这个陈述：“意义闪躲不定”。

Like desire, meaning is constantly
shifting, and despite the fact that language always carries meaning, it is
incapable of fixating it. Inasmuch as the analysand’s demands are
embedded in language, their desire will always be articulated in these
demands (desire will speak through the verbalizations), but the demands
will never fully articulate their desire. ‘Although it always shows through
demand…desire is nonetheless beyond it’ (Lacan 1977i[1958]:269).
Desire (meaning) is always articulated, but never fully articulatable (Lacan
1998b[1957–58]:329–330). Or, as Lacan put it in 1973: meaning is always
fleeting from the cask of language (Lacan 1975d[1973]:11).

就像欲望，意义不断地转换。尽管这个事实：语言总是带着意义，语言并无法固定意义。因为分享者的要求被镶嵌于语言，他们的欲望将总是被表达在这些要求里（欲望将会言说，通过文辞表达）。但是要求将永远不会充分地表达他们的欲望。“虽然欲望总是通过要求显现，欲望仍然超越要求”。欲望（意义）总是被表达，但是从来没有充分地被表达。如同拉康在1973年表达它，意义总是从语言的棺材瞬间而过。

As his work progressed Lacan separated the effect of meaning (sens)
from the emergence of signification (signification). In ‘The Agency of
the Letter’ he hinted at this conceptual difference when stating that ‘the
value of the image [in Egyptian hieroglyphics, for instance] as signifier
has nothing whatever to do with its signification’ (1977g[1957]:159).

随着他的研究的进展，拉康将意义的影响，跟意义的出现分开。在“信息的代理”，他暗示，在他的观念的差异，当他陈述：意象的价值（譬如，埃及的象征文字），因为能指根本就没有任何关系，跟意义。“

Whereas the signification of a certain image may be ‘vulture’, its meaning
may be the letter ‘A’. Meaning is what results from the translation of
one text into another, whereas signification, in its dependence upon
common-sense understanding, does not require any form of transcription.
Convergent on the production of meaning (desire), and not on
signification, interpretation (deciphering) can therefore also be compared
to a process of translation.32 Moreover, once a message has been
deciphered, once its meaning has been revealed, one can still fail to
understand it.

无论某个意象的意义上多么的“贪心“，它的意义可能是”A”这个字母。意义就是从一个文本翻译成为另外一个文本的结果。虽然意义，由于依靠共同常识的理解，并没有要求任何铭记的形式。汇集在意义（欲望）的产生，而不是汇集在意义。解释（解析）因此也能够被比喻为翻译的过程。而且，一旦一个讯息被解析，一旦它的意义已经被揭露，我们依旧没有理解它。

Meaning does not necessarily give rise to signification,
although signification annihilates meaning. The Biblical story of Daniel’s
interpretation of the writing on the wall serves as a good example of
this.33 Daniel translated God’s Aramaic words ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel,
Upharsin’ as ‘Numbered, Numbered, Weighed, Broken’ but it did not
make the Babylonians any wiser.

意义未必要产生意涵。虽然意涵毁灭意义。丹尼尔的解释圣经的故事，书写在墙壁上，充当这个的很好的例子。丹尼尔的翻译阿拉梅克的文字“‘Mene, Mene, Tekel,
Upharsin’ ，翻译成为“被形成数目，被形成数目，被压倒，被破碎“。但是巴比伦人还是不清楚那是啥意思。

After Daniel had revealed to King
Belshazzar what the words represented, the Babylonians were still puzzled
about their significance.34 Hence, the revelation of the meaning of a coded
message does not eradicate the question as to what it refers to, or why it
has been produced in the first place. The acknowledgement of a desire
does not solve the mystery surrounding its origin and object. But finding
the signification of a message does imply that the meaning of that message
disappears, to the extent that it can no longer be interpreted in a variety
of ways.

在丹尼尔已经显露给贝萨扎国王知道这些字代表什么，巴比伦人依旧困惑，关于它们的意涵。因此，符码讯息的意义的启示并没有抹除这个问题，关于它提到什么，或是为什么它首先曾经被产生。欲望的被承认并没有解决环绕它的起源与客体的神秘。但是找到讯息的意涵确实暗示：那个讯息的意义消失。甚至，它不再能够用各色各样的方式被解释。

In relation to clinical practice Lacan was adamant that ‘interpretation
is on the side of meaning and goes against signification’ (Lacan 1973
[1972]:37). The analyst needs to ensure that the analysand’s messages
(dreams, symptoms, demands, etc.) are deciphered in such a way that
the elusiveness of meaning (the ethereal character of desire) is maintained.
Whereas meaning keeps desire open, signification kills it because there
is nothing left to desire anymore.

关于临床的实践，拉康坚决主张，解释在意义的这一边，而且违背意涵。分析家需要保证：分析者的讯息（梦，症状，要求，等等）都被解析，用这样的方式，以致意义的闪躲（欲望的空灵特性“被维持。虽然意义让欲望保持开放，意涵杀死它。因为没有任何东西被剩余下来可以欲望。

This idea was already present in Lacan’s works from the early 1950s,
when he pondered the value of ‘naming’ desire as a psychoanalytic action.
In Seminar I he was quite appreciative of Strachey’s idea (1934) that the
analyst’s interventions should be confined to naming the pervasive yet
inexpressible aspects of the analysand’s discourse (Lacan 1988b [1953–
54]:188).

这观念已经出现在拉康的著作，从1950年代开始。当他沉思“命名”欲望的价值，作为是精神分析的行动。在第一研讨班，他相当赏识史特拉奇的观念：分析家的介入不应该被限制于命名分析者的辞说的这个瀰漫而又无法表达的层面。

Yet one year later, in a discussion of The Interpretation of
Dreams, he claimed that ‘behind what is named, there is the unnameable’
and that everything ‘revealed as nameable is always on the level of the
dream-work’, ‘a symbolisation, with all its laws, which are those of
signification’ (Lacan 1988c[1954–55]:211). In other words, naming is
part and parcel of the psychic process that transforms a latent, unconscious
wish into a manifest dream-content: the dream-work proceeds from the
repressed (the unnameable) to the expressible (the nameable).35 Since
the interpretation of dreams follows the opposite route, from manifest to
latent, it is precisely the naming, the formulation of the wish that should
be unravelled.

可是，一年以后，在讨论“梦的解释”，他宣称：在被命名的东西的背后，有这个无法被命名的的东西，每样被显露作为可命名的东西，总是在梦的运作的层面。这样的象征化，具有它的一切法则，它们是意涵的法则。换句话说，命名心灵过程的部分与包裹，它转换一个潜在，无意识的愿望，成为是明显的梦的内容。梦的运作前进，从被压抑的东西（无法被命名的东西），到可表达的东西，（可命名的东西）。因为梦的解释遵相反的途径，从明显到潜在，它确实就是命名。应该被揭发的愿望的阐述。

Challenging his audience, Lacan accordingly averred:
‘[W]hat we are looking for in the interpretation of the dream, [is] this x,
which in the end is desire for nothing. I defy you to bring me a single
passage from the Traumdeutung which concludes—this is what the
subject desires’ (ibid.: 211). None the less, Lacan continued to use the
naming of desire as an interpretive act, yet changing the connotation of
naming from ‘defining’ and ‘designating’ (Lacan 1998b[1957–58]:329)
to ‘creating’, ‘recognising’ ‘restoring’ and ‘bringing into existence’
(Lacan 1988c [1954–55]:228–229; 1958–59: session of 26 November
1958).

因为拉康挑战他的听众，他因此主张：“在梦的解析里，我们正在寻找的东西，是这个未知数x。最后，这个未知数x就是空无的欲望。我挑衅你们带给我作为结论的段落，从’梦的解析‘ –这就是主体的欲望。可是，拉康继续使用欲望的命名，作为是解释的行动，可是，改变命名的外延意义，从”命名“与”指明“，改变成为”创造“与”体认“，”恢复“，”使存在“。

To illustrate how his procedure differed from the prevalent tactics of
interpretation within ego-psychology Lacan intermittently referred to a
case-example adduced by Ernst Kris in an influential paper on interpretation
(Kris 1951). The case concerned an academic in his thirties who had come
to see Kris because he experienced great difficulty in publishing the results
of his researches, thus reducing his chances for promotion, due to the
belief that he was always copying other people’s ideas.36

为了解释他的程序的差别，跟自我心理学的盛行的解释的策略的差别。拉康不断地提的一个个案，由克利斯提出的个案，在具有影响力的论文，探讨解释。这个个案关系到他的三十年代的知识份子，他前来探望克利斯，因为他经历巨大困难，要出版他的研究的成果。因此，减少他被升级的机会。由于这个信仰：他总是处理其他人们的观念。

One day the patient
reported that just before he was about to embark on a new project for
publication he had discovered a book in the library containing a blueprint
of the thesis he was on the verge of publishing. When Kris compared the
text in the library with his patient’s views he concluded that, despite some
similarities, his analysand had projected his fantasy of plagiarism onto the
book. Kris told the man that he was not plagiarizing, that his anxiety was
completely unjustified, and that it originated in an infantile wish for a
successful father. Kris waited for the patient’s response and after a lengthy
silence the young man said:

有一天，病人报导说：就在他即将从事新的出版计划，他在图书馆发现一本书，包含他即将出版的一个论文的蓝图。当克利斯比较图书馆的文本，跟病人的观点，他下结论说：尽管某些的类似，他的分析者已经投射他的剽窃的幻想，进入这本书里。克利斯告诉这个人：他并没有剽窃，他的焦虑完全没有理由，他的焦虑起源于婴孩时的愿望，要成为成功的父亲。克利斯等待病人的回应，经过漫长的沉默后，年轻人说：

Every noon, when I leave here, before luncheon, and before returning
to my office, I walk through X street [a street well known for its small
but attractive restaurants] and I look at the menus in the windows. In
one of the restaurants I usually find my preferred dish—fresh brains.
(ibid.: 23)

每个中午，当我离开这里，在午餐之前，在回到我的办公室。我走过X街道，那个街道因为有小而迷人的餐厅著名。我观看窗户上的菜单。在其中一家餐厅，我通常找到我最喜欢的一道菜—新鲜的脑髓。

Kris did not elaborate on this peculiar testimony, but for Lacan it
signalled the analysand’s recourse to an acting-out as a result of Kris’
spurious interpretation. His verification of the analysand’s fear incited him
to interpret the problem as having no basis in reality: ‘You may think that
you are copying somebody’s ideas, but I can assure you that this is not the
case!’ In Lacan’s reading, this interpretation could be termed correct as
regards the factual reality of the analysand’s situation, but it simultaneously
suffocated the analysand’s desire to plagiarize.

他并没有建构这个特殊的证词。但是，对于拉康，它意味着分析者诉诸于行动演出，由于克利斯的假的解释。他的验证分析者的恐惧，刺激他解释这个难题，作为是没有现实的基础。“你可以认为，你正在抄袭别人的观念，但是我告诉你，情况并不是这样！“用拉康的阅读，这个解释可以被称为是正确，关于分析者的情境的实际上的现实。但是，它同时窒息分析者想要剽窃的欲望。

When resorting to the
consumption of fresh brains, the analysand tried to preserve his desire,
against his analyst’s demand that he exchange it for an acceptance of the
facts.37 By eating fresh brains the analysand addressed himself with his
desire to the analyst after the latter had neutralized it by his interpretation.38

当诉诸于新鲜脑髓的消费时，分析者尝试保留他的欲望，对抗他的分析家的要求：他应该交换他的欲望，交换对于事实的接纳。凭借新鲜的脑髓，分析者自己处理他对于分析家的欲望，经过分析家用他的分析，对于他的欲望保持中立。

Although Kris’ intervention was geared towards the analysand’s desire
(his wish), it was at once an attempt to efface it in favour of the young
man’s adaptation to the reality of his situation. As an alternative to Kris’
interpretation (‘Rest assured, you do not steal’) Lacan proposed in ‘The
Direction of the Treatment’ an intervention whereby the analysand would
come to avow his desire to steal whilst acknowledging that the object of
this desire is ‘nothing’ (Lacan 1977i[1958]:239). Rather than an actingout,
this restoration of the analysand’s desire around the object ‘nothing’
would have triggered a further analytical exploration of its dialectical
relationship with the desire of the Other, and its continuous transitions
(metonymical) from one inadequate object to another.

在克利斯的介入触动朝向分析者的欲望（他的愿望），它既是一种想要抹除它的企图，以赞同年轻人的适应他的情况的现实。作为克利斯的解释的替代品，（请放心，你并没有剽窃）。拉康建议，在他的“治疗的方向“，分析者将会逐渐宣称他想要剽窃的欲望的介入。另一方面，他又承认，这个欲望的客体是空无。非但没有激情行动，分析者的欲望的恢复，环绕这个客体，”空无“本来会触发更进一步的精神分析的探索，对于它的辩证的关系，跟大他者的欲望，以及它的继续的转换，（换喻的转换），从一个不充分的客体，到另外一个不充分的客体。

Although it demonstrates on the one hand how the analyst smothers
the analysand’sdesire with ‘true’ interpretations and on the other how a
proper psychoanalytic intervention should operate, Lacan’s critique of
Kris’ case-example is also potentially misleading, as it may foster the
view that the analyst ought to tell the analysand what he believes he
desires or, even more radically, that he desires nothing.39 Because such
an inference contradicts Lacan’s ideas that the analysand is the chief
interpreter, that the analyst should not name the patient’s desire, and that
naming means restoring rather than defining, it should be avoided. But
how should the analyst facilitate the emergence of the analysand’s desire
and its interpretations? In ‘The Direction of the Treatment’ Lacan
formulated the following abstruse guideline:

虽然它一方面证明，分析家如何窒闷分析者的欲望，用“真实“的解释。另一方面，它也证明，一个合适的精神分析的介入应该如何运作。拉康对于克利斯的个案的例子也是潜在地具有误导，因为它可能培养这个观点：分析家应该告诉分析者，他相信他欲望的东西，甚至更加强烈地，他欲望空无。因为这样的推理，抵触拉康的观念：分析者是主要的解释者，分析家不应该命名病人的欲望，命名意味著恢复，而不是定义。命名应该被避免。但是分析家如何方便分析者的欲望的出现与其解释？在”治疗的方向“，拉康阐述以下的奥秘的引导：

In order to decipher the diachrony of unconscious repetitions,
interpretation must introduce into the synchrony of the signifiers
that compose it something that suddenly makes translation possible…
(ibid.: 233)

为了解无意识的重复的二分法，解释必须介绍某件东西西，进入组成解释的这些能指共时性。突然让翻译成为可能的某件东西。

What Lacan called ‘the diachrony of unconscious repetitions’ in this
passage is nothing else than the mechanism controlling the changing
manifestations of a symptom over a certain period of time. For instance,
the academic described by Kris had regularly pinched sweets and books
during his adolescence, so that his current symptom of plagiarism was just
another avatar of an insistent unconscious core. Interpretation does not
entail finding and offering the signification of the analysand’s history of
symptoms, as in Kris’ explanation that all his symptoms were rooted in a
wish to incorporate his father’s penis (Kris 1951:23), but discovering the
representations (signifiers) that preside over each of the symptoms (‘the
synchrony of the signifiers’) and translating these representations in such
a way that the analysand’s desire becomes apparent.

当拉康在这个段落里，称为是“无意识的重复的二分法”的东西，实实在在就是控制症状的正在逐渐改变的展示，经过某个时间的时期。譬如，克利斯描述的学院人士曾经规律地盯着糖果与书籍，在他的青春期。这样，他目前的剽窃的症状，仅是一个坚持的无意识的核心的另外一次灵显现。解释并没有涵盖找到与发现分析者的症状的历史的意涵，如同在克利斯的解释：所有他的症状都根源于想要合并他的父亲的阴茎的愿望。而是涵盖要发现再现表象，操控每一个症状的能指，（各个能指的共时性），然后翻译这些再现表象，用这样一个方法，让分析者的欲望变得明显。

In the former case the
symptoms are regarded as representations whose signification should be
revealed, whereas in the latter the symptoms function as significations in
themselves, as products of a pathological interpretation whose principles
should be clarified. Unlike the traditional methods of interpretation, which
proceed from representation to signification, Lacan advocated an approach
proceeding from signification to representation and to desire.
More specifically, Lacan contended that the translation of the
synchronous signifierswill only occur if interpretation introduces
something into that synchrony.40 It is not enough for the analysand to
realize which set of representations has governed each of his symptoms
since the onset of his illness.

在前者的情况，症状被认为是再现表现，它们的意涵应该被显示。而在后者，症状发挥功能，作为本身就是意涵。如同病例的解释的产物。它们的原则应该被澄清。不像传统的解释的方法：从再现表现前进到意涵。拉康主张一个方法，从意涵前进到再现表象，然后到欲望。更加明确地说，拉康主张，共时性的能指的翻译会发生，仅是当解释介绍某件东西进入那个共时性。这并不足够让分析者体会到，哪一组再现表象曾经统辖他的每个症状，自从他的疾病的开始以来。

These representations need to be translated
into a desire (their meaning), and the analyst can only ensure that the
translation will not follow the same paths as those that have led to the
appearance of the symptoms if she intervenes in such a way that the set
is being reorganized. The process can be compared to the precipitation
of a substance in a saturated solution as a result of the addition of a
reacting agent.

这些再现表象需要被翻译成为欲望（它们的意义）。分析家仅是告诉，这个翻译将不会遵循相同的途径，跟那些曾经导致症状的出现的相同的那些途径。用这样的方式，以致这组症状正在被体认。这个过程能够被比喻成为在饱满的解决里，物质的突然产生，由于反应的代理者的增加的结果。

The analyst’s interpretation serves as a reacting agent
which facilitates the precipitation of the analysand’s desire out of the
saturated solution of her unconscious repetitions. Analytic interpretation
is what separates desire from a recurrent series of alienating symptomatic
demands, which prompted Lacan to designate its essential status as a cut
(coupure) (Lacan 1958–59: session of 1 July 1959; 1970:70). When and
how often this cut should be performed, and whether it should be
effectuated via a temporal or linguistic punctuation or via the introduction
of a signifier, is for the analyst to decide.41

分析者的解释充当是反应的代理者，让分析者的欲望的突然产生变得方便，从她的无意识的重复的饱满的解决。精神分析的解释，就是将欲望跟重现的系列的疏离的症状的要求，分离的东西。这引起拉康将它的基本的地位，指明作为是切割。这个切割何时及用何种方法应该被执行，以及它是否应该被实践，经由时间或语言的中断，或经由能指的介绍，这要由精神分析家作决定。

As Lacan pointed out in ‘The
Direction of the Treatment’, the analyst is free in the timing, frequency
and choice of his interpretations (Lacan 1977i[1958]:228).42
Being free in the timing also implies that the analyst does not have to
postpone his interpretations until the analysand has developed a
sufficiently strong transference.

如同拉康指出，在“治疗的方向“，分析家在他的解释的时机，频率与选择，可自由运用。在时机的自由运用暗示着，分析家并没有必要拖延他的解释，直到分析者已经发展充分的强烈的移情。

Against Freud’s recommendation in ‘On
Beginning the Treatment’ that not ‘until an effective transference has
been established in the patient, a proper rapport’, should the analyst
disclose ‘to him the hidden meaning of the ideas that occur to him’ (Freud
1913c: 139), Lacan underscored that such an adjournment of
interpretations will automatically reduce their impact, because once the
transference has been established the analysand will hear every
interpretation as coming from the person he has identified the analyst
with (Lacan 1977i[1958]:231).43

对抗弗洛伊德的推荐，在“论治疗的开始“：直到病人身上，有效的移情已经被建立，一个适当的关系，分析家才应该给他揭露他想到的隐藏的观念的意义。”拉康强调，这样的解释的拖延将会自动地减少他们的冲突。因为一旦移情已经被建立，分析者将会听见每个解释，作为是来自他认同为是分析家的这个人。

Supporting Freud’s early intervention
in his case-study of the Rat Man (Freud 1909d), Lacan maintained that
before the transference has been well established, the analyst should bring
about a rectification of the subject’s relations with the real, even if this
triggers an aggravation of the symptoms (Lacan 1977i[1958]:237). In
Lacan’s opinion Freud’s shocking interpretation of the Rat Man’s
compulsive fear as the derivative of an unconscious wish to harm his
father need not be dismissed as an indoctrination, but applauded as an
ingenious mapping of the Rat Man’s subjective position.

支持弗洛伊德的早期的介入，在他的“鼠人的个案研究，拉康主张，在移情确实被建立之前，分析家应该导致主体跟实在介的关系的矫正，即使这会触发症状的恶化。依拉康之见，弗洛伊德的令人震撼的解释”鼠人“的强迫性恐惧，作为是无意思的愿望的衍生物。为了伤害他的父亲。这种解释并没有需要被排斥为是灌输。而应该被称赞为是机智地描绘”鼠人“的主观的立场。

‘Rectification
of the subject’s relations with the real’ does not entail forcing the
analysand to face the reality of his condition, but it entails enabling him
to acknowledge the motive supporting the place he adopts in his speech.
If Freud had put himself on the side of reality, he would have told the
Rat Man: ‘Despite the fact that you think you are a criminal, I can tell
you that you have never committed a serious criminal offence’. Yet putting
himself on the side of the subject’s relations with the real, he said: ‘If
you think you are a criminal, you’d better start recognizing the nature of
the unconscious crimes you have committed’.

主体跟实在界的关系的矫正，并没有涵盖要强迫分析家面对他的情况的现实。但是，它涵盖让分析家能够承认这个动机，支持他在他的言说里採用的位置的动机。假如弗洛伊德当时曾经将他自己，放置在现实的这一边，他本来会告诉“鼠人“说：「尽管你认为你是罪犯的这个事实，我能够告须你，你从来没有犯过严重的刑罚的罪。」可是，假如弗洛伊德将他自己放置在主体跟实在界的关系的这一边，你最好开始体认出你曾经犯过的无意识的罪的特性。

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