Archive for the ‘拉康:精神疾病’ Category

精神病 362

May 8, 2014

精神病 362
雅克、拉康

What is at issue in the psychotic? Suppose someone unthinkable for us,
one of these gentlemen who, we are told – if indeed any have ever existed,
don’t believe I attribute any importance to such hearsay – was capable of
such self-discipline that he no longer believed in Father Christmas and was
able to convince himself that everything good that one does entails an equivalent
evil and that consequeitly one mustn’t do it. Admitting this, even for
an instant, is sufficient for you to understand that all sorts of things which
are fundamental at the level of the signifier may depend on it.

在精神病者,受到争议的问题是什么?假定对我们而言,某个人是不可思议的。我们被告诉,有其中一位绅士—假如确实有这样一个人,请不要认为我重视这样的异端邪说—他能够如此自我训练,以致他不再相信耶诞父亲,并且能够相信,我们所做的每件好事,确实涵盖某种相等的邪恶。结果,我们一定不要去做它。虽然承认这点,即使是一下子,也足够让你们理解,在能指的层次上,基本的各色各样的事情,都依靠它。

Well then, compared to you the psychotic has this disadvantage, but also
this privilege, of finding himself a little bit at odds with, askew in relation to,
the signifier. Once he is summoned to harmonize with these signifiers, he has
to make a considerable effort of retrospection, which culminates in these
extraordinarily bizarre things that constitute what is called the development
of a psychosis.

呵呵,跟你们比较起来,精神病拥有这个缺点。而且这个特权,发现他自己跟能指稍微有点冲突,有点歪斜的关系。一旦他被召唤要跟这些能指和谐,他必须尽相当多的努力来反省。这种反省在这些特别古怪的事情,达到高潮,那些形成所谓的精神病的发展。

This development is quite particularly rich and exemplary in
the case of President Schreber, but I have shown you in my case presentations
that things become a bit clearer once one possesses this point of view,
even in the most common illnesses. The most recent case I have shown you
was of someone who was very, very strange, on the verge of mental automatism,
though not quite there.

在许瑞伯庭长的个案,这个发展相当特别地丰富,及作为典范。但是在我的个案的呈现里,我曾经跟你们显示,一旦我们拥有这个观点,事情变得稍微清楚,即使是在最普通的疾病。我最近跟你们显示的最近的个案,是关于非常古怪的某个人,在精神病自动发作的边缘,虽然并不是完全是那样。

For him everyone was suspended in an artificial
state whose coordinates he defined well. He had observed that the signifier
dominates the existence of beings, and his own existence appeared to him to
be much less certain than anything that presented itself with a certain signifying
structure. He stated it quite crudely. You noticed that I put this question
to him – When did all this begin? During your wife’s pregnancy? He was a
bit astonished for a moment, then answered me – Yes, that’s true – adding
that it had never occurred to him.

对于他,每个人都被悬置在人为的状态。这种状态的座标,他清楚定义。他曾经观察,能指支配各种生物的存在。他自己的存在,对他而言,似乎是更加地不确定,比起任何具有某种的能指意义结构的呈现的东西。他相当粗略地陈述它。你们注意到,我对他提出这个问题:「这是何时发生的?在你妻子的怀孕期间吗?」他惊奇了一下子,然后回答我:「是对,那是真实的」—然后补充说,他从来没有想到。

-From the imaginary point of view, what we say in passing, in analysis, has
strictly no importance, since it’s solely a question of frustration or of no frustration.
One frustrates him, he is aggressive, he regresses, and we continue
like that until the most primordial fantasies emerge. Unfortunately, this isn’t
the correct theory. One has to know what one’s saying. It isn’t sufficient to
bring signifiers into play in this way – I tap you an the shoulder . . . You’re
really a nice person . . . You had a bad daddy . . . Things will work out. One
has to use them in full knowledge, make them resonate otherwise, and at
least know how not to employ certain of them. The negative indications con-
ceming certain contents of interpretation are highlighted by such a point of
view.

从想像的观点,我们偶然所说的东西,在精神分析当中,严格来说,并没有重要性。因为这仅是挫折或没有挫折的问题。有件事让他感到挫折,他具有侵凌性,他退化,然后我们像那样继续下去。直到最原初的幻想出现。不幸地,这并不是正确的理论。我们必须要知道一个人在说什么。用这种方式让各种能指运作,并不足够。「我轻拍你的肩膀、、、你确实是位好人、、、你老爸对你不好、、、事情总会好转。」我们必须使用它们,充分理解,让它们有不同迴响,至少要知道如何运用其中的某些。关于解释的某些内容,负面的指示被这样的观点强调。

I leave these questions open. The year ends in dialect, why should it end
in any other way?

我让这些问题开放讨论。今年的研讨班以辩证法作为结束,为什么不用任何其他方式结束呢?

In conclusion I would like to move to a different genre of style from my own.
Several weeks back I promised myself to end on a very pretty page by an
admirable poet called Guillaume Apollinaire. It comes from the Enchanteur
pourrissant.

作为结论,我想要移动到跟我自己不同的另外一种风格的方式。好几个星期前,我跟自己许诺,要用一位令人崇敬的诗人名叫阿保里奈尔的美丽的诗篇来作为结束。那是从Enchanteur
Pourrissant 摘录过来。

At the end of one of the chapters there is the enchanter who is rotting away
in his tomb, and who, like any good cadaver, I won’t say speaks drivel, as
Barris would say, but enchants and speaks very well. There is also the Lady
of the Lake seated on her tomb – it was she who had got him to enter the
tomb by telling him that he could get out again easily, but she, too, had her
tricks, and the enchanter is there, rotting away, and from time to time speaks.

在其中一个章节结束时,有一位法术师在他的坟墓里逐渐腐烂。他像任何尸体一样,我估且不说是唾液一样,如同巴瑞士过去常说,但是他的魔法术与言说术非常高明。也有位湖边女郎坐在她的坟墓上。就是这位女郎劝导他进入坟墓。她告诉他说,他能够很容易地再次出来。但是她也玩弄她的把戏。然后,魔法师就在那里,逐渐腐烂,时而侃侃而谈。

This is where we are when a number of madmen appear in the middle of
various funeral processions, along with a monster whom I hope you are going
to recognize. This monster is the one who found the analytic key, the active
force of men, and especially in the relation of the father-child to the mother.

这就是我们的处境,当许多的疯子出现在各种告别式的行列当中,以及一位怪物。我希望你们认得出这位怪物。这位怪物就是找到精神分析钥匙的这个人,人们当中的积极力量。特别是在父亲-小孩与母亲的关系上。

/ mewed, I mewed, said the monster, I encountered only owls who assured me that he
was dead. I shall never be prolific. However, those who are have qualities. I confess that
I do not recognize any in me. lam alone. I am hungry, I am hungry. Here I discover a
quality of my own; I am famished. Lets look for something to eat. He who eats is no
longer alone.9
4 July 1956

「我猫叫,我猫叫,这位怪物说,我仅是遇到一些猫头鹰告诉我说,他死了。我将无法繁殖子孙。可是,拥有那些特质的那些人们,我坦白说,我在我身上并没有体认出任何的特质。我是孤独的,我饥饿。我饥饿。在此,我发现属于我自己的一个特质。我饿惨了。让我们寻找某件东西来吃。有东西吃的人不再是孤独。」
1956年 7月4日

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

精神病 361

May 7, 2014

精神病 361
雅克、拉康

In any case, it is impossible in the phenomenology of psychosis to misunderstand
the originality of the signifier as such. What is perceptible in the
phenomenon of everything that takes place in psychosis is that it is a question
of the subject’s access to a signifier as such and of the impossibility of that
access. I shan’t go back over the notion of Verwerfmg I began with, and for
which, having thought it through, I propose to you definitively to adopt this
translation which I believe is the best -foreclosure.

无论如何,在精神病的现象,要误解能指作为原初性的自身是不可能的。发生在精神病的每样东西都现象,能够被感知的东西就是,它是主体接近能指自身的问题,以及那种接近的不可能。我将不回到我开头谈论的「除权弃绝」的观念。当我对它彻底思维之后,我跟你们明确地建议,要採用这个翻译,我相信是最贴切的翻译「除权弃绝」。

There follows a process whose first stage we have called an imaginary cataclysm,
namely that no longer can anything in the mortal relation, which is
in itself the relation with the imaginary other, be held on lease. Then there
is the separate deployment and bringing into play of the entire signifying
apparatus – dissociation, fragmentation, mobilization of the signifier as speech,
ejaculatory speech that is insignificant or too significant, laden with nonmeaningfulness,
the decomposition of internal discourse, which marks the
entire structure of psychosis. After the encounter, the collision, with the inassimilable
signifier, it has to be reconstituted, since this father cannot be simply
a father, a rounded-out father, the ring of just before, the father who is
the father for everybody. And President Schreber does in fact reconstitute
him.

随之而来的是一道程序。这道程序的第一阶段,我们称为想像的触媒。也就是说,有限生命的关系的每样东西,它的自身都跟想像的它者有关。它不再处于被租贷的状态。因此,整个能指意义的工具就会有分开运作及展现。作为言说的能指会分离,片断,动员,微不足道,或太过重要的突发的言说,充满无意义的话语,内部辞说的瓦解,都标记著精神病的整个结构。在遭遇之后,冲突,对于无法被吸收的能指而言,它必须重新被建构,因为父亲无法仅是父亲,变得复杂的父亲,就在先前的指环,人人通用的父亲。许瑞伯事实上并没有重新建构它。

Nobody is aware of being inserted into the father. Nevertheless, I would
like to point out to you before leaving you this year that to be doctors you
may be innocent, but that to be psychoanalysts you should nevertheless meditate
from time to time on a theme such as this, even though neither the sun
nor death can look itself in the face. I shan’t say that the slightest little gesture
to arouse an evil creates possibilities for a greater evil, it always entails a
greater evil. This is something that a psychoanalyst should become accustomed
to, because I believe that he is absolutely incapable in all conscience
of conducting his professional life without it. Having said this, it won’t take
you very far. The newspapers are always saying that God only knows whether
the progress of science is dangerous, etc., but for us this is neither here nor
there. Why not? Because you are all, myself included, inserted into this major
signifier called Father Christmas. With Father Christmas things always work
out and, I would add, they work out well.

没有人知道被插入于父亲里。可是,我想要跟你们指出,在今年告一段落之前。作为医生,你们可以无知,但是,作为精神分析家,你们应该时常沉思像这样的一个主题,即使太阳与死亡都无法正视它自己的脸孔。我估且不说,即使最轻微的姿态,想要召唤邪恶,都会创造更大邪恶的各种可能。它总是涵盖一个更大的邪恶。这就是精神分析家应该习惯于的某件东西,因为我相信,无论他多有良心,他绝对无法从事他的专业生涯,而没有创造邪恶。我说完这段话,不算是过分夸大。报纸总是说,只有上帝晓得,科学的进步是否危险,等等。但是对于我们而言,问题不在此,也不在那里。为什么不是呢?因为你们大家,包括我在内,都被插入于所谓的耶诞父亲的主要能指里。对于耶诞父亲而言,事情总是会有运作结果,容我补充一句,它们运作得很顺畅。

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

精神病360

May 6, 2014

精神病360
We’re not here to develop all the facets of this function of the father, but I
am pointing out one of the most striking of them, which is the introduction
of an order, of a mathematical order, whose structure is different from the
natural order

我们在此,并不是要发展父亲功能的这个刻面,但是我正在指出其中一个引人注目的刻面。那就是秩序的介绍,数学秩序的介绍,它的结构不同于自然的秩序。

We’ve been trained in analysis through the experience of the neuroses. The
imaginary dialectic may suffice if, within the framework of this dialectic that
we have sketched out, there already exists this implied signifying relation for
the practical use one wants to put it to. In two or three generations no doubt
no one will understand it at all anymore, a cat won’t be able to find its kittens,
but for the moment, on the whole, the continued presence of the theme of
the Oedipus complex preserves the notion of signifying structure, which is
so essential for finding one’s way about the neuroses.

在精神分析经验,我们曾经接受神经症的完整训练。想像的辩证法可能就足够,假如在我们曾经描绘的这个辩证法的架构里面,已经有这个暗示的能指意义的关系,可充当我们想要的实际运用。无可置疑地,在两或三个世代,根本就不再有人理解它,猫无法找到它的小猫。但是目前,大体上,伊狄浦斯情结的主题的继续存在,保存了能指意义的结构的观念。这是如此的重要,为了找到我们有关神经症的途径。

But where the psychoses are concerned, things are different. It’s not a
question of the subject’s relation to a link signified within existing signifying
structures, but of his encounter under elective conditions with the signifier
as such, which marks the onset of psychosis.

但是就精神病而言,事情不同。问题并不是主体跟所指的联系的关系,在现存的能指意义结构里面,而是他对于能指的自身的选择性情况,那标记著精神病的开始。

Look at the point in his life at which President Schreber’s psychosis declares
itself. On more than one occasion he was in the situation of expecting to
become a father. Here he is, all of a sudden, invested with a socially eminent
function, one that has great value for him – he becomes President of the
Court of Appeal. I should say that within the administrative structure in
question it is something like the Conseil d’Etat.* Here he is admitted to the
top of the legislative hierarchy, among men who make laws and are all twenty
years older than he is – a disturbance in the order of generations. Following
what? Following an explicit call from the ministers. This promotion of his
nominal existence solicits a renewing integration from him. Ultimately the
question is whether or not the subject will become a father. The question of
the father centers all Freud’s research, all the points of view he has introduced
into subjective experience.

请你们观看他的生命的这个时刻,许瑞伯庭长的精神病宣告它自己。在不仅一个场合,他处于期望成为父亲的情境。突然地,就在这个地方,他被投注从社会角度而言是重要的功能,对于他具有重大价值的功能。他被任命当上诉法庭的庭长。我应该说,在受到质疑的行政的结构里面,那是像是最高法院的职位。在此,他被容许进入司法阶层的顶端位置。跟立法而且比他年长二十岁的人们相处,在世代的秩序上,这是一种乱序。遵循什么呢?遵循部长们的明确召唤。他在世途的存在的晋升,从他那里召唤一种更新的融合。最后,问题是,这位主体是否会成为父亲。父亲的这个问题是弗洛依德的研究的核心,他介绍进入主体的经验的所有的观点。

This is entirely forgotten, I’m well aware. Recent analytic technique is
clouded by the object relation. The supreme experience that is described,
this famous distance taken in the object relation, ultimately consists in fanx
tasizing the sexual organ of the analyst and imaginarily absorbing it. Make
filiation the equivalent of fellatio? Indeed there is an etymological relationship
between these two terms, but this isn’t a sufficient reason for deciding
that analytic experience is a sort of obscene chain that consists in the imaginary
absorption of an object that has finally been extracted from fantasies.

我清楚地知道,这完全被忘记。最近的精神分析技术被笼罩在客体关系里。被描述的崇高的经验,在客体关系採取得著名的距离,最后是由精神分析家的性器官的幻想组成,并且想像地吸收它。让亲密结合等于就是口交?的确,在这两个术语之间,有词源学的关系。但是这并不是充分的理由来决定,精神分析的经验就是一种卑下的锁链。这个锁链在于想像地吸收从幻想抽取过来的客体。

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

精神病 358

May 2, 2014

精神病 358
雅克、拉康

What makes it nevertheless subsist for us, to the point where we do not
stop asking ourselves questions about it, stems uniquely from the original
thafs it, that is, the naming as such of the rainbow. There is nothing besides
this name.

可是,让它为我而生存的东西,甚至我们没有停止询问我们自己关于它的问题。它独特地起源于原初的「那就是它」。换句话说,彩虹的命名自身。除了这个命名之外,没有东西。

In other words, to pursue this further, this rainbow doesn’t speak, but one
could speak in its place. Nobody ever speaks to it, this is quite striking. The
aurora is interpellated, and so are all sorts of other things. The rainbow retains
the privilege, along with a number of other manifestations of the same kind,
that nobody speaks to it. No doubt there are reasons for this, namely that it
is quite particularly insubstantial. But let’s say that one speaks to it. If one
speaks to it, one can make it speak. One can make it speak to whomever one
wants.

换句话说,为了更进一步追寻这个,这个彩虹并没有言说,但是我们能够代替它言说。从来没有人跟它言说,这是相当引人注意到。大气被质问,各种的其他物象也被质问。彩虹保留没有人跟它言说的这个特权,以及许多相同种类的其他展示。无可置疑,这种情况的理由很多。换句话说,它相当特别不具有实体。但是让我们说,我们跟它言说。假如我们跟它言说,我们就能让它言说。我们能够让它言说,跟任何想要跟它言说的人。

This could be to the lake. If the rainbow has no name, or if it doesn’t
want to hear anything of its name, if it doesn’t know that it’s called the
rainbow, the only resource this lake has is to show it the thousand little mirages
of the sunshine upon its waves and the rising vapor. It may well attempt to
join up with the rainbow, but it will never join up with it, for the simple
reason that the little fragments of sun that dance on the surface of the lake,
like the vapor that wafts away, have nothing to do with producing the rainbow
which begins at a certain angle of inclination of the sun and at a certain
density of the droplets in question. There is no reason to search for either the
inclination of the sun or for any of the indices that determine the phenomenon
of the rainbow, so long as it is not named as such.

这能够是跟湖言说。假如彩虹没有命名,或假如它没有想要听到任何属于它的命名的东西,假如它并不知道它被称为彩虹,这座湖拥有的唯一的资源,就是跟它显示上千的阳光的海市蜃楼,在它的波浪以及上升的水蒸气。它很有理由企图跟彩虹会合,但是它从来没有跟它会合。理由很简单,在湖的表面上跳舞的阳光的碎片,就像散开的水蒸气,跟产生彩虹的东西没有丝毫关系。彩虹从太阳的倾斜的某个角度开始,在受到质疑的水滴的某个密度开始。没有理由去寻找太阳的倾斜,或决定彩虹现象的任何指标,只要它没有被命名为彩虹。

If I’ve just carried out this lengthy study concerning something that has
the characteristic of a spherical belt, able to be unfolded and refolded, it’s
because the imaginary dialectic in psychoanalysis is of exactly the same kind.
Why are the mother-child relationships, to which there is a tendency to limit
it more and more, inadequate? There is really no reason.

假如我刚刚从是这个冗长的研究,关于某件具有球形腰带的特性的东西,它能够展开与重新展开,那是因为在精神分析,想像的辩证法确实属于相同的性质。母亲与小孩的关系为什么是不充分的?当有一种倾向要越来越限制它?

We’re told that a mother’s requirement is to equip herself with an imaginary
phallus, and it’s very clearly explained to us how she uses her child as
a quite adequate real support for this imaginary prolongation. As to the child,
there’s not a shadow of doubt – whether male or female, it locates the phallus
very early on and, we’re told, generously grants it to the mother, whether or not in a mirror image, or in a double mirror image. The couple should harmonize
symmetrically very well around this common illusion of reciprocal
phallicization.

我们被告诉,母亲的要求是替她自己装备一种想像的阳具。我们清楚地被解释,母亲如何使用她的小孩作为一种相对充分的真实的支持想像中的延长。至于小孩,根本就没有丝毫的怀疑。无论男性或女性,它很早就找出阳具的定位。我们被告诉,慷慨地将它给予母亲,无论是镜子意象,或在双重的镜子意象。这个配对应该非常均称地和谐,环绕着互相阳具化的共同幻想。

Everything should take place at the level of a mediating function
of the phallus. Now, the couple finds itself on the contrary in a situation
of conflict, even of respective internal alienation. Why? Because the phallus
is, as it were, a wanderer. It is elsewhere. Everyone knows where analytic
theory places it – it’s the father who is supposed to be its vehicle. It’s around
him that in the child the fear of the loss of the phallus and, in the mother,
the claim for, the privation of, or the worry over, the nostalgia for, the phallus
is established.

每样东西都应该发生在阳具的中介的功能的层次。现在,相反地,这个配对发现它自己处于一种冲突的情境,甚至是各别的内部的异化。为什么?因为阳具就是所谓的流浪者。它在别的地方。众所周知,精神分析理论将它放置在哪里。父亲被认为是它的工具。环绕着父亲,在小孩身上,阳具的丧失的恐惧,在母亲身上,对于阳具的宣称,阳具的被剥夺,或阳具的焦虑,阳具的怀念,都被建立。

Now, if affective, imaginary exchanges between mother and child are
established around the imaginary lack of the phallus, then that which makes
it the essential element of intersubjective coaptation in the Freudian dialectic,
the father, has his own and that’s that, he neither exchanges it nor gives it.
There is no circulation. The father has no function in the trio, except to
represent the vehicle, the holder, of the phallus. The father, as father, has
the phallus – full stop.

现在,假如在母亲与小孩之间的情感的,想像的交换被建立,环绕阳具的想像的欠缺,那么,在弗洛依德的辩证法,让它成为互为主体性的结合的基本要素的东西,父亲,就拥有他自己的阳具。那就是那个,他既没有交换它,也没有给予它。并没有流通存在。在这个三角关系,父亲并没有功能,除了就是代表阳具这个工具,这位拥有者。父亲,作为父亲,拥有阳具—句点。

In other words, he is that which in the imaginary dialectic must exist in
order for the phallus to be something other than a meteor.

换句话是,父亲在想像的辩证法是必须存在的东西,为了让阳具成为某件并非是流星的东西。

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

精神病 357

May 1, 2014

精神病 357
雅克、拉康

How else can we explain that a man is able to understand something, what
is called understanding, of the simplest formulation to be inscribed in language,
the most elementary utterance – Thafs it [c*est cela]? For a man, this
expression nevertheless has an explanatory sense. He has seen something,
anything, which is there, and thafs it. Whatever the thing is he is in the
presence of, whether it be a question of the most unusual, the most bizarre,
or even the most ambiguous, thafs it. It is now located somewhere other than
where it was beforehand, which was nowhere, now it’s – thafs it.

除外,我们要如何解释,一个人能理解某件事情。所谓的理解,应该被铭记在语言的即使是最简单的说明,最基本的表达—那就是它?可是,对于一个人,这种表达具有解释的意义。他曾经看见过某件东西,任何在那里的东西,那就是它。无论这个东西是什么,他处于「这就是它」的这个过程,无论是最不寻常,最古怪,或甚至最暧昧的东西的问题。它现在被定位在某个并非是它先前所在的地方。以前是乌何有之所。现在则是:「那就是它。」

I would for a moment like deliberately to take a phenomenon that is exemplary
because it’s the most inconsistent of that which can present itself to
man – the meteor.7

我想要刻意接纳一个作为典范的现象。因为它是呈现给人的最不一贯的现象。流星的现象。

By definition the meteor is that [cela], it’s real and at the same time it’s
illusory. It would be quite wrong to say that it’s imaginary. The rainbow,
thafs it. You say that the rainbow is that, and then you search. People racked
their brains for some time until M. Descartes came along and completely
reduced the whole affair. There is a region that becomes iridized in little
drops of water in suspension, etc. Fine. And so what? There is the ray on
one side and the condensed drops on the other. That’s it. It was only an
appearance – that’s it.

定义上,流星就是「那个」。它是真实的,它同时也是幻觉。假如我们说,流星是想像的,那我们就错误了。你们说,彩虹就是「那个」。那么,你去研究。人们有一阵子绞尽脑筋,直到笛卡尔前来,将整个事情完全解决。在悬置的水滴,有一个地区变成虹彩,等等。很好,然后呢?在一边有光线,在另外一边有浓缩的水滴。「那就是它。」那仅是外表–「那就是它。」

Notice that the question is not at all settled. A ray of light is, as you know,
a wave or a corpuscle and a little drop of water is a curious thing, since
ultimately it’s not really in gaseous form, it’s condensation which is falling in
a liquid state, but in a suspended fall, between the two, in the state of an
expansive pool, as water.

请你们注意,问题根本就没有被解决。众所周知,光线是一种波浪,或一种小东西。而一滴水滴则是一件耐人寻味的东西。因为最后,它并没有确实处于气体的形态,它是掉落在液体状态的浓缩。但是处于被悬置的掉落,在扩大的水池里,处于两个液体状态之间,作为水。

When we say, then, Thafs it, we imply that that’s all it is, or that that’s
not what it is, namely, the appearance that we had stopped at. But this proves
to us that everything that has subsequently emerged, the thafs all it is as well
as the thafs not what it is, was already implied in the thafs it at the beginning.
A rainbow is a phenomenon that has no kind of imaginary interest, you
will have never seen an animal pay one any attention, and as a matter of fact
man pays no attention to an incredible number of related manifestations.

那么,当我们说,「那就是它时」,我们暗示着,那就是它的一切。或是,那并不是它的本质。我们停留在外表上。但是这跟我们证明,随后出现的每样东西,「那就是它的一切」,以及「那并不是它的本质」,都已经被暗示在开始的「那就是它」里。彩虹的现象并没有引起想像的興趣,你们从来没有看见过一只动物注意彩虹。实际上,人们并没有注意无数相关的展现。

Various iridizations are exceedingly widespread in nature and, gifts of observation
or some special research aside, nobody pauses at them. If on the contrary
rainbows exist, it’s precisely in relation to the thafs it. That’s why we
have named them rainbows and why when one speaks of them to someone
who hasn’t yet seen one there is a point at which one says to him – Thafs
what a rainbow is. And this thafs what it is presupposes the implication that
we are going to carry on until we have run out of breath, to discover what
lies hidden behind it, what its cause is, to which we shall be able to reduce
it. Notice that what has characterized the rainbow and the meteor from the
beginning – and everybody knows this since this is why it’s called a meteor
– is precisely that nothing is hidden behind it. It exists entirely in this appearance.

在自然界,各色各样的虹彩是极端普遍。除了具有观察到天赋及某些特别的研究外,没有人会为它们停下来。相反地,假如彩虹存在,那确实是跟「那就是它」息息相关。那就是为什么我们曾经命名它为彩虹,为什么当我们对某位还没有见到它们的人谈到它们时,有个时刻我们对他说:「那就是彩虹的样子。」这个「那就是它的样子」预先假设这个暗示,我们将继续这样,直到我们喘不过气来,为了要发现它的背后隐藏什么,它的原因是什么,我们将能够解答它。请你们注意,从一开始,表现彩虹及流星的特征的东西,确实就是在它背后没有东西—众所周知,因为这是为什么它被称为是流星。它完全存在于这个外表里。

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

精神病 356

May 1, 2014

精神病 356
雅克、拉康

Doesn’t this kind of declaration give you cause to wonder, when we know
that the putting into play of the signifier in the symptom has no link with
anything of the order of a tendency? You would really have to have the oddest
idea of natural symbolization to believe that a ring is the natural symbolization
of the female sexual organ.

这种宣告难道不是给你们想要知道的理由,当我们知道,能指在病征里的运作个跟倾向的秩序的任何东西,没有关联?你们确实必须拥有最古老的观念,对于自然的象征,这样你们才会相信,戒指是女性的性器官的象征。

You are all familiar with the theme of the Ring of Hans Carvel, a fine story
from the Middle Ages of which La Fontaine made a tale and which Balzac
used again in his Comes drolatiques. This fellow, who is colorfully depicted
and is sometimes said to be a priest, dreams that he has a ring on his finger
and on waking finds that he has his finger inside the vagina of his companion.
To put this in a way that dots the is and crosses the ts – how could the
experience of penetrating this orifice, since it is an orifice that is in question,
resemble in any way at all that of putting on a ring, if one didn’t already
know in advance what a ring is?

你们对于「汉斯、卡维尔」的主题都耳熟能详,这是中世纪的美好故事,拉、丰田创作一个故事,巴尔扎克再次使用者他的Comes drolatiques. 这个人生动地被描述,有时据说是一位僧侣。他梦想他的手指上拥有一个戒指。当他清醒时,他发现,他的手指在他的伴侣的阴户里。让我们描述一下细节:贯穿这个阴穴的经验,跟戴上戒指,如何有任何方式类似?因为受到质疑的是这个阴穴,假如我们不是已经事先知道戒指是什么?

A ring isn’t an object one encounters in nature. If there is anything in the
order of penetration that resembles the more or less tight-fitting penetration
of a finger inside a ring, it is certainly not – I appeal, as Marie-Antoinette
used to say, not to all mothers, but to all those who have ever put their finger
in a certain place – it’s certainly not penetrating this place which is, my God,
more like a mollusk than anything else. If something in nature is designed to
suggest certain of the properties of a ring [anneau] to us, it is restricted to
what language has dedicated the term anus to, which in Latin is spelt with
one n, and which in their modesty ancient dictionaries designated as the ring
that can be found behind.

戒指并不是我们在自然里遭遇的客体。假如贯穿的秩序有任何东西类似手指放进戒指的这个相当密切配合的贯穿—如同马丽亚、安东尼特过去常说,我并非诉诸所有的母亲—而是诉诸所有将他们的手指放进某个地方的人们—那确实并不是贯穿这个地方。我的天,贯穿这个地方倒是更像软体动物。假如自然界有某件东西被设计跟我们暗示着戒指的某种特性,它被限制于语言给予排粪口anus的这个术语专属的东西。在拉丁文,它的拼字只有一个n。由于谦虚,古代的字典设计它当著背后能够找到的戒指。

But to confuse one with the other on the basis of the fact that it may be a
question of natural symbolization, one must really have had in the order of
these cogitative perceptions. . . . Freud himself must have really despaired
of you not to have taught you the difference between the two, and regarded
you as irredeemable little idiots.

但是为了要将这个戒指跟另外一个戒指混为一谈,根据这个事实,那是自然象征的问题,我们确实必须拥有,在这些认知的感觉上、、、弗洛依德确实曾经让你们感到绝望,因为他并没有教导你们这两者之间的差异,将你们当作是无可救药的白痴。

Mr. Jones’s lucubration is designed to show us that a ring is introduced
into a dream, indeed a dream that culminates in a sexual action, only because
we thereby signify something primitive. Cultural connotations frighten him
and this is where he is mistaken. He doesn’t imagine that the ring already
exists as a signifier, independently of its connotations, that it’s already one of
the essential signifiers by which man in his presence in the world is capable
of crystallizing many things other than marriage. A ring isn’t a hole with
something around it, as Mr. Jones seems to think, in the manner of these
people who think that to make macaroni one takes a hole and surrounds it
with flour. A ring above all has a signifying value.

琼斯先生的辛勤研究被设计来告知我们,戒指被介绍进入梦里。的确,梦在性的行动达到高潮,只是因为我们因此指明某件原初的东西。文化的意涵让他惊吓,这就是他错误的地方。他没有想像,戒指已经存在,作为一个能指,独立于它的内涵意义。它已经是一个基本的能指,凭借这个能指,存在于世界的男人,除了婚姻之外,还能够将许多东西具体化。戒指并不是有某件东西环绕它的空洞,如同琼斯先生似乎这样认为,类似有些人们认为,为了制作通心面,我们弄一个空洞,然后用面粉环绕它。尤其重要的是,戒指拥有一个能指意义的价值。

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

精神病355

April 29, 2014

精神病 355
雅克、拉康

His point of view. Freud never completely elucidated it, but it’s what makes
his position tenable in relation to this kind of leveling-off, as it were, of
instinctual signs that psychoanalytic dynamics have tended to be reduced to
since Freud. I am speaking of the terms that he never abandoned, that he
requires for any possible analytic understanding, even where it hangs together
only approximately, for it hangs together all the better in this way – namely,
the function of the father and the castration complex.

他的观点。弗洛依德从来没有完整地诠释它。但是关于在这种的夷平,所谓本能的讯息的夷平,这是让他的立场得以自圆其说的东西。自从弗洛依德以降,精神分析的动力机制倾向于还原成为这些本能的讯息。我正在谈论的是他从来没有放弃的这些术语,他要求任何可能的精神分析的理解,即使是在它仅是大约垂挂一块的地方,因为以这种方式它垂挂得更好。换句话说,父亲的功能与阉割情结。

It can’t be a question purely and simply of imaginary elements. What one
finds in the imaginary in the form of the phallic mother isn’t homogeneous,
as you are all aware, with the castration complex, insofar as the latter is integrated
into the triangular situation of the Oedipus complex. This situation is
not completely elucidated by Freud, but by virtue of the sole fact that it is
always maintained it is there ready to lend itself to elucidation, which is only
possible if we recognize that the third element, central for Freud, which is
the father, has a signifying element that is irreducible to any type of imaginary
conditioning.

这并不纯粹仅是想像的因素的问题。我们以阳具的母亲的形式,在想像界所发现的东西,如众所周知,跟阉割情结并不是同质性的。因为后者被合并进入伊狄浦斯情结的三角情境。这种情境,弗洛依德并没有完整地诠释,而是仅是凭借这个事实,它总是被维持在那里,凖备有助于诠释。这种诠释是可能的,假如我们体认出,第三个因素,作为弗洛依德的中心。那就是,父亲拥有无法化简为任何想像的制约种类的能指化因素。

2
I’m not saying that the Name of the Father is the only one of which we can
say this.

我并不说,以父亲之名,是唯一我们能够说在个的东西。

We can uncover this element whenever we apprehend something that is of
the symbolic order properly so-called. On this subject I reread, once again,
Ernest Jones’s article on symbolism.51 shall take up one of the most notorious
examples in which this master’s brat tries to grasp the phenomenon of
the symbol. It concerns the ring.

我们能够揭露出这个的因素,每当我们理解某件属于合宜所谓象征秩序的东西。针对这个主题,我一再地重新阅读奥尼斯、琼斯探讨象征主义的文章。我将从事其中一个最恶名昭彰的例子。在那里,这位主人的小孩尝试理解象征的象征。那跟戒指有关。

A ring, he tells us, doesn’t enter into play as an analytic symbol insofar as
it represents marriage, with all that is cultural and developed, even sublimated
– since this is how he expresses himself – that this conveys.6 The ring
as a symbol of marriage is to be sought somewhere in sublimation – we couldn’t
care less about all that, it drives us up the wall, we’re not people to speak to
about analogies. If a ring signifies something it’s because it is a symbol of the
female sexual organ.

他告诉我们,戒指并没有运作,作为精神分析的象征,因为它代表婚姻所传达的,具有文化与发展,甚至是升华的东西。因为这是他表达他自己的方式。戒指作为婚姻的象征,应该在升华的某个地方探索。我们对那一切根本就不在乎,它将我们逼到墙壁,我们并不是谈论它们类同性的人们。假如戒指意味着某件东西,那是因为它象征女性的性器官。

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

精神病 354

April 29, 2014

精神病 354
雅克、拉康

Whatever certain of the weaknesses in Freud’s argument concerning psychosis
may be, it is undeniable that the function of the father is so exalted in
Schreber that nothing less than God the father – in a subject for whom up to
this point this has had no sense – is necessary for the delusion to attain its
culminating point, its point of equilibrium. The prevalence, in the entire
evolution of Schreber’s psychosis, of paternal characters who replace one
another, grow larger and larger and envelop one another to the point of
becoming identified with the divine Father himself, a divinity marked by the
properly paternal accent, is undeniable, unshakable, and destined to make
us raise the question once again – how come something that confirms that
Freud is so right is only investigated by him in certain modes that leave a lot
to be desired?

关于精神病,弗洛依德的论点无论有某些的弱点,无可否认的是,在许瑞伯身上,父亲的功能是如此的崇高,以致于,实实在在就是上帝作为父亲—直到那个时刻,对于主体并没有意义。现在为了让妄想症到达高潮点,它的平衡点,这是有必要的。在许瑞伯的精神病的整个进化过程,陆续互相取代的父权人物的盛行,变得越来越大,甚至互相涵盖到变成认同神性的父亲他自身。这样的神性的标记恰当地强调父亲。这是无可否认,无可动摇,并且注定让我们再一次提出这个问题:为什么某件肯定弗洛依德是正确的东西,仅是由他来研究,用某些相当值得挑剔的模式。

In reality, everything in him is balanced, and everything remains inadequate
in Mrs. Macalpine’s rectification. It’s not only the vastness of the fantasmatic
character of the father that prevents us from being in any way satisfied
with a dynamics founded on the irruption of a pre-oedipal fantasy. There are
many more things, including what in both cases remains enigmatic. Freud,
much more than Mrs. Macalpine, comes close to the preponderant, crushing,
proliferating aspect of the phenomena of verbal auditivation, the formidable
captivation of the subject in the world of speech, which is not only copresent
with his existence, which constitutes not only what last time I called a spoken
accompaniment of acts, but also a perpetual intimation, solicitation, summation
even, to manifest itself on this plane.

实际上,在他身上的每样东西都被平衡,在马卡派恩的纠正。可每样东西始终不充分。这不但是父亲的幻想的人物的广大,让我们无法满意于以前伊狄浦斯的幻想的发作为基础的动力机制。还有更多的东西,包括在两个个案里,始终是谜团的东西。弗洛依德远超过马卡派恩,对于文辞幻听的现象,他接近强势,压倒性,快速扩张的一面,主体被强制地虏获于言说的世界。言说的世界不但跟他的存在共同存在,这形成我上次所说的行动的言说成就,而是这是一种永久的恫吓,恳求,召唤,甚至在这个层次展现自己。

Not for one instant must the
subject cease testifying, at the constant inducement of the speech that accompanies
him, that he is there present, capable of responding – or of not
responding, because perhaps, he says, one wants to compel him to say something
silly. By his response, as by his nonresponse, he has to testify that he
is always awake to this internal dialogue. Not to be so any longer would be
the signal of what he calls a Verwemng, that is, as it has been correctly translated,
a decomposition.

主体没有丝毫瞬间停止测试,在伴随他的言说的不断诱导中—他在现场,他能够回应,或不回应,因此或许,他说,有人想要逼迫他说出某件傻事情。凭借他的回应,如同凭借他的不回应,他必须测试,他总是对这个内部的对话,有所警觉。若是不再这样做,将会指示著,他所谓的「否认」。换句话说,如同它正确被翻译的,那是一种瓦解。

This is what we have drawn attention to this year and what we have insisted
upon, in order to say that it’s what gives the pure Freudian position its value.
Despite the paradox presented by certain manifestations of psychosis if one refers them to the dynamics that Freud recognized in neurosis, psychosis nevertheless happens to be explored in a more satisfactory manner from his point of view.

这是我们今年一直提醒注意的东西,我们所坚持的东西,为了说,那是给予纯粹弗洛依德学派的立场拥有它的价值的东西。尽管精神的某些展示呈现的悖论,假如我们将它们跟弗洛依的在神经症体认出来的动力机制相提并论。可是,从他的观点,精神病恰恰是用更加令人满意的方式来探索。

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

精神病 353

April 28, 2014

精神病 353
雅克、拉康

This is no doubt what drove Ida Macalpine to raise the most unusual problem
of direct correspondences between the symbol and the symptom. The
apparatus of the symbol is so absent from the mental categories of the contemporary
psychoanalyst that the sole way such relations can be conceived is
through the intermediary of a fantasy. Furthermore, her entire argument
consists in relating the development of the delusion to a fantasmatic theme,
to an originary – original [originelle] according to the usual word today – pre
oedipal fixation, emphasizing that what sustains desire is essentially a theme
of procreation, but one that is pursued for its own sake, is asexual in form,
and only induces conditions of devirilization, of feminization, as a sort of a
posteriori consequence of the requirement in question. The subject is conceived
as born into the sole child-mother relation, prior to any constitution
of a triangular situation. This is when he would have seen a fantasy of desire
born within himself, a desire to equal the mother in her ability to create a
child.

无可置疑地,这是为什么艾达、马卡派恩会想要提出这个最不寻常的问题,象征与病征之间的直接对应。在当代精神分析的精神范畴里,象征的工具是如此的欠缺,以致于这些关系能够被构想的唯一的方法,就是通过幻想的中介。而且,她整个的论点在于将妄想症的发展,跟幻想的主题挂钩,跟原初的东西挂钩—依照今天original这个通常字词的使用。前伊狄浦斯阶段的固著,强调维持欲望的东西,基本上是一个生殖的主题,但这是一个为了自身的缘故被追求的主题。形式上跟性无关。它仅是诱导出除掉生命力的各种情况,作为一种受到质疑的要求的由因推果的结果。主体被构想作为是诞生进入孩子-母亲的关系,早先于三角情境的任何结构。这就是当他本来会看见一种欲望的幻想,在他内部诞生,这种欲望相当等于是拥有创造一个小孩的能力的母亲。

This is Mrs. Macalpine’s entire argument, which I have no reason to pursue
here in all the richness of its detail, since it is within your reach in the
substantial preface and postface to the English edition of Schreber’s text she
has done. It is important to see that this construction is connected with a
certain reorientation of the entire analytic dialectic which tends to make the
imaginary economy of fantasy, the various fantasmatic reorganizations, disorganizations,
restructurations, and destructurations, the hub of all comprehensive
progress as well as of all therapeutic progress. The schema that is
currently so widely accepted, frustration-aggressiveness-regression, is at the
base of everything in this delusion that Mrs. Macalpine thinks she can explain.

这是马卡派恩女士的整个的论点。我没有理由在此追寻它丰富的细节。因为你们在英文版的许瑞伯的文本,她所写的的长篇序言与后跋就可找得到。重要的是要看出,这个建构跟整个的精神分析的辩证法的某种重新定向息息相关。整个的精神分析辩证法倾向于形成幻想的想像的经济,各种的幻想的重新组织,瓦解,重新建构,以及解构,各种全面性的进展以及各种治疗的进展的枢纽。目前如此广泛被接受的基模,挫折-侵凌-倒退的基模,作为这个妄想症的一切的基础,马卡派恩认为他能够解释。

She goes a long way in this direction. There is, she says, a decline, a twilight
of the world, and at one point a quasi-confusional disorder of the apprehensions
of reality, only because the world has to be recreated.5 She thus
introduces, at the most profound stage of the mental confusion, a sort of
teleology. The entire myth was only constructed because it is the only way
for the subject Schreber to satisfy himself in his imaginary requirement of
childbirth.

她朝这个方向前进。她说,有一种衰微,世界的黄昏。在某个时刻,会有一种类似精神病的混乱,对于现实界的理解。仅是因为这个世界必须重新被建造。她因此介绍,在精神病最深刻的阶段,一种的目的论。整个的神话被建构,仅是因为这是唯一的方式,让许瑞伯这位主体满意于他诞生小孩的想象的要求。

Ida Macalpine’s point of view can no doubt enable us to understand the
putting into play, the imaginary impregnation, of the subject to be reborn –
I’m copying here one of Schreber’s themes which is, as you know, the picturing.
4′

艾达、马卡派恩的观点,无可置疑,让我们能够理解即将重新诞生的主体的运作,想像的孕育。我在此抄袭许瑞伯的一个主题,众所周知,那是「绘图」。

But from such a point of view, in which only imaginary fantasies are involved,
what enables us to understand the prevalence that Freud gives to the function
of the father?

但是从这样一个观点,仅有想像的幻想被牵涉到,是什么让我们能够理解弗洛依德为什么强调父亲的功能?

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

精神病 352

April 27, 2014

精神病 352b
雅克、拉康

We must remark that despite certain weaknesses in his argument, which
are due to the use of terms that only have their place in the imaginary dialectic
of narcissism, the virile object is the essential element at play in the con-
flict. It alone enables us to make sense of and to understand the different
stages of the delusion’s evolution, its phases, and its final construction. Furthermore,
we may note in passing all sorts of subtleties that have not been
developed or completely explored. Freud shows us for example that projection
alone cannot explain delusion, that it is not a matter of a mirror image
of the subject’s feeling, but that it is indispensable to determine stages in it
and, at a certain moment as it were, a loss of the tendency, which ages.

我们必须谈论,尽管他的论点有某些弱点,那是由于那些术语的使用,仅有在自恋的想像的辩证法,才有它们的立足之地。在冲突当中,生命力的客体是运作的基本要素。光是它,就让我们能够明白与理解妄想症的进化的不同阶段,它的时期,及它最后的建构。而且,我们可能会顺便注意到,还没有被发展,或还没有完全被探索的各种的微妙细节。譬如,弗洛依德跟我们显示,光是投射并无法解释妄想症。这并不是主体感觉到镜像阶段,而是,要在它那里决定阶段,是无法被免除不用的东西。并且在所谓的某个时刻,那个倾向的丧失,在那个年纪。

Over the course of the year I have greatly insisted upon the fact that what has been
repressed within reappears without, re-emerges in the background – and not
in a simple structure but in a position that is, as it were, internal, which
makes the subject himself, who in the present case happens to be the agent
of persecution, ambiguous, problematic. He is initially only the representative
of another subject who not only permits but undoubtedly acts, in the
final analysis. In short, the otherness of the other is spread out. It’s one of
the problems to which as a matter of fact Freud does lead us, but he stops
there.

过去一年来,我曾经强烈坚持这个事实: 在内部被潜抑的东西,会从外部重新出现,在背景重新出现。不是以简单的结构,而是以一个所谓的内部的立场。这个立场让主体他自己模糊暧昧,及问题重重。因为在目前的情况,主体他自己恰恰是迫害的代理者。他最初仅是代表另外一个主体。追根究底,这另外一个主体不但包容,而且无可置疑地行动。总之,他者的这个他性被扩展开来。这是其中一个难题,事实上是弗洛依德引导我们到达的难题,但是他停在那里。

Ida Macalpine, after others, but in a much more coherent way than others,
objects that nothing permits us to think that this delusion presupposes the
genital maturity, if I may call it that, that would explain the fear of castration.
The homosexual tendency is far from manifesting itself as primary. What we
see from the start are symptoms, initially hypochondriacal, which are psychotic
symptoms.

艾达、马卡派恩跟随着别人之后,但是以比别人更加一贯的方式,反对说,没有一样东西让我们能够认为,这个妄想症预先假设性器官的成熟。容我这样说,性器官的成熟将解释阉割的恐惧。同性恋的倾向根本就没有展示自己作为是原初性。我们从一开始所看见的东西是病征,最初被感到忧郁。这些病征是精神病的病征。

At the outset one finds this particular something which is at the heart of
the psychotic relation, such as the psychosomatic phenomena that this clinician
has especially worked on, and which certainly for her are the means of
access to the phenomenology of this case. It is here that she might have directly
apprehended phenomena that are structured quite differently from what takes
place in the neuroses, namely, where there is some sort of direct imprint or
inscription of a characteristic and even, in certain cases, of a conflict upon
what may be called the material picture that the subject presents as a corpo-
real being. A symptom such as a facial eruption, which can be variously
characterized dermatologically, will be mobilized in response to a given anniversary
for example, directly, without any intermediary, without any dialectic,
without any interpretation’s being able to indicate any correspondence
with anything from the subject’s past.

一开始,我们发现这个特别的某件东西,处于精神病的关系的核心。譬如临床医生特别从事的心理与肉体的现象。对于她而言,这些现象确实是接近这个个案的现象的工具。就在这里,她可能已经理解到这些现象,结构上相当不同于发生在神经征的东西。换句话说,会有某种的直接铭记或特征的铭记,在某些的个案,会有冲突的铭记,在所谓的物料的画面上,主体呈现的画面,作为具有真实肉身的生命实存。诸如脸部发作这样的病征,有时在皮肤上具有各种的特征。这样的特征将会被动员,用来回应,譬如某个周年纪念,直接地,没有中介地,没有任何的辩证法,没有任何的解释能够指示,它跟主体的过去的任何东西,有任何的一致关联。

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