拉康論移情 0419c
THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊
Transference 論移情
1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯
Seminar 16; Wednesday 19 April 1961
It will not be felt, subjectivated, if to subjectivate is to take up
a place in a subject that is valid for another subject, namely to
pass to this most radical point where the very idea of (4) communication is not possible. Every signifying battery can always say everything because what it cannot say will signify nothing at the locus of the Other and because everything that signifies for us always happens at the locus of the Other. In order that something should signify, it is necessary that it should be translatable at the locus of the Other.
它將不會被感覺,被主體化,假如主體化就是要在生命主體裡佔據一個位置,這個生命主體,對另外一個生命主體是有效的。換句話說,傳遞到這個最積極的點,在那裡,溝通的觀念是不可能的。每一個能指化的鎖鏈總是能夠說出一切,因為跟我們能指的一切,總是發生在大它者的軌跡。 為了讓某件東西具有能指,它有需要被翻譯成為大它者的軌跡。
Imagine a tongue, as I already pointed out to you, which has no
future, well then it will not express it, but it will signify it
all the same, for example by the procedure of ought or to have.
And this is moreover what happens in fact, because I do not need
to come back on this, I pointed it out to you, this is how in
French and in English one expresses the future: cantare habeo, je
chanter-ai, tu chanter-as, it is the verb avoir which is declined, I mean originally, in a well attested fashion; I shall sing, is also, in a roundabout way, to express that which English does not have, namely the future.
想像一種語言, 如我已經跟你們指出的,這個語言沒有前途,它將不會表達它, 但是它將仍然給予意符。例如,憑藉應該擁有的程式。 而且,這是事實上發生的事情, 因為我並不需要回頭談這一點。 我跟你們指出,這是在法文及英文,我們如何表達未來式:cantare habeo, je chanter-ai, tu chanter-as,是avoir 這個動詞被拒絕。 我的意思是原先,它處於清楚證明的方式。 我將唱歌,以繞過的方式,它表達英文所沒有的東西, 也就是未來。
There is no signifier lacking. At what moment does there possibly begin to appear the lack of signifier? At that proper dimension which is subjective and which is called the question.
沒有欠缺的能指。在什麼時候,能指點欠缺可能開始出現?在主體化及所謂的問題的那個適當維度?
I remind you that at one time I took into account sufficiently the fundamental, essential character of the apparition in the child (already well known, picked up of course by the most day-to-day observation) of the question as such, this moment so particularly embarrassing because of the character of these questions which is not an indifferent one, one where the child who knows how to deal with the signifier introduces himself to this dimension which makes him pose to his parents the most
importunate questions, the ones that everyone knows provoke the
greatest disarray and, in truth, responses that are almost necessarily impotent. What does running mean? What does kicking mean? What is an imbecile?
我提醒你們,有一次我充分地考慮到,這個受到質疑本身的小孩身上的魅影的基本重要特性 ( 這已經是眾所周知,當然是從日常觀察中挑選出來) 。這個時刻特別令人尷尬,因為這些問題的特性,這並不是冷漠的特性。在這個特性裡,小孩知道如何處理能指。他介紹自己給這個維度。這個維度讓他跟他的父母親提出最懇切的問題。眾所周知,這些問題會引起驚慌失措。 事實上, 回答幾乎必然是軟弱無力。 跑是什麼意思? 踢是什麼意思? 白癡是什麼?
What makes us so incapable of giving a satisfactory answer to these questions, what forces us to respond to them in such a specially inept fashion…. as if we did not know ourselves that to run is to walk very quickly – it is really to spoil the work – that to kick, is to be angry – is really to say something absurd. I am not insisting on the definition that we may give of imbecile.
對於這些問題,為什麼我們不能夠給予令人滿意的回答?是什麼迫使我們以如軟弱無力的方式回答? 好像我們自己不知道, 跑就是很快地走—-這樣確實會弄巧成拙—-踢就是憤怒—這樣說確實是荒謬。我並不堅持我們可能給予白癡的定義。
It is quite clear that what is in question at that moment is a
standing back of the subject as regards the usage of the signifier itself and that, the passion of what is meant by the fact that there are words, that one speaks and that one designates a thing so close to what one is dealing with by this enigmatic thing which is called a word, a term, a phoneme, this indeed is what is at stake.
顯而易見的,那個時刻受到質疑的是生命主體的撤退,關於能指的本身的用法。文字存在的這個事實,所意味的激情,我們談話,我們指明一件東西,它如此靠近我們正在處理的東西,由於所謂的一個詞語,一個術語,一個音素的謎團的東西。 這確實是岌岌可危的東西。
The incapacity felt at that moment by the child is, formulated in the question, of attacking the signifier as such at the moment when its action is already marked on everything, indelible. Everything that will come as
question, in the historical continuation of his pseudophilosophical
meditation, will only when all is said and done collapse because, when he has got to “What am I?” he will not have got much further in it, unless of course he is an analyst.
在那個時刻,小孩所感覺到的無能為力, 在這個問題被說明,他攻擊能指的本身,當它的行動已經被標示在每一件事上,無法被抹除。每一件事將作為問題來臨, 在他類似的哲學的沉思的歷史延續裡, 當一切都被說被做,每件東西都會崩潰。因為當他到達「我是何許人也?」,他無法再進一步發揮,除非當然,他說一位精神分析師。
But if he is not – it is not in his power to be one for all that long – [when] he has got to the stage of posing himself the question “What am 1?”, he cannot see that precisely by putting himself in question in this form, he veils himself, he does not perceive that it is to break through the stage of doubt about being to ask oneself what one is, for by simply formulating the question in this way, he is going headlong (except for the fact that he does not perceive it) into metaphor.
但是假如他並不是精神分析師—儘管一切,他並沒有充當精神分析師的能力—他已經到達這個階段,跟他自己提出這個問題:「我是何許人也?」。他無法明白,確實以這種方式質疑他自己,他遮蓋了他自己,他沒有感覺到,這是要突破懷疑的階段,關於生命實存,為了詢問自己,他自己是何許人也。因為僅有以這種方式說明這個問題, 他一頭闖入比喻的領域。( 除了這個事實: 他並沒有感覺到它。)
And it is all the same the least of the things that we, we analysts, should
remember in order to help him to avoid renewing this ancient error always threatening in its innocence under all its forms and to prevent him from answering himself, even with our authority: (5) “I am a child”, for example.
這仍然是,我們作為精神分析師, 至少應該記住的事情,為了幫助他避免重蹈這個古代的錯誤。這個錯誤總是以它的各種形態,以它的無知,具有威脅性。以及為了阻止他不要自己回答,甚至用我們的權威: 譬如,「我是一位小孩」。
Because of course this is the new reply that the indoctrination of psychologising repression in its renewed form will give him and with it in the same packet and without him noticing it, the myth of the adult who, for his part, is no longer supposed to be a child, thus making remultiply again this sort of morality about a pretended reality to which, in
fact, he allows himself to be led by the nose by all sorts of social swindles.
當然,因為這是這個新的回答, 心理化的潛抑,以它的更新的方式灌輸,將會給予他這個成年人的神話, 還是相同的包裝,但是他沒有注意到。 就他而言,這個成年人,不再被認為是一個小孩,因此再一次將這種道德繁複化,關於一個偽裝的現實界。事實上, 他讓他自己被社會的各種欺騙牽著鼻子走。
Moreover, we did not have to wait for analysis, nor for Freudianism, for the formula “I am a child” to introduce itself as a corset designed to make anyone, who in any way finds himself in a slightly irregular position, hold himself straight. If beneath the artist there is a child, it is the
rights of the child that he represents among people who of course
are considered to be serious, who are not children.
而且, 我們並沒有必要等待精神分析,也沒有必要等待佛洛伊德的思想,才能找到「我是一個小孩」這個公式,為了介紹它自己,充當一種緊身胸衣,被設計將任何人都緊緊套牢。無論如何,這個人發現他自己處於稍微不規律的立場。假如在藝術家身上,都有一個小孩,那是他代表這個小孩的權利, 當然在那些被認為是嚴肅的人當中。 那些人並不是小孩。
As I told you last year in my lessons on The ethics of psychoanalysis, this tradition dates from the beginning of the Romantic period, it
begins more or less at the time of Coleridge in England (to situate it in a tradition) and I do not see why we should charge ourselves with taking it on.
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com