Archive for the ‘拉康:精神疾病’ Category

精神病 351

April 27, 2014

精神病 351
雅克、拉康

How do we account for the intensity of the defense? Freud’s explanation
looks like it is contained entirely within the reference to narcissism. The
defence against the homosexual tendency begins with a narcissism under threat.
The megalomania represents that by which the narcissistic fear expresses itself.
The ego’s enlargement to the dimensions of the world is a fact of libidinal
economy which is apparently located entirely on the imaginary level. Making
himself the supreme being’s love object, the subject can henceforth abandon
that which, of all that he was going to save, initially seemed most precious to
him – namely the mark of his virility.

我们如何解释防卫的强度?弗洛依德的解释看似它完全被包含着自恋的指称之内。对抗同性恋倾向的防卫,开始于受到威胁的自恋。夸大狂代表自恋的恐惧用来表达它自己的东西。自我的扩大到世界的维度,是生命力比多的经济的事实。生命力比多的经济显而易见地完全被定位在想象的层次。当主体让他自己成为优秀的人的爱的客体时,主体因此放弃了最初对他似乎是最珍贵的东西,也就是他的生命力的标记。那是他将于拯救的东西。

But ultimately, and I stress this, the pivot, the point of convergence of the
libidinal dialectic that the mechanism and development of neurosis refer to
in Freud, is the theme of castration. It’s castration that conditions the narcissistic
fear. To accept castration the subject must pay as elevated a price as
this reworking of the whole of reality.

但是最后,我强调这一点。这个枢纽,生命力比多辩证法的汇集点,在弗洛依德,神经症的机制与发展提及的生命力比多的辩证的汇集点是阉割的主题。阉割制约了自恋的恐惧。为了接受阉割,主体必须付出跟这个同样高昂的代价,来重新建构整个的现实。

Freud stuck by this prevalence. In the material, explanatory order of
Freudian theory, from beginning to end, this is an invariable, a prevalent
invariable. He never subordinated or even relativized its place in the theoretical
conditioning of the subjective interplay in which the history of any psychoanalytic
phenomenon whatsoever is inscribed. It was around Freud, within
the analytic community, that one wanted to give it symmetrical or equivalent
things. But in his work the phallic object occupies the central place in libidinal
economy, in both man and woman.

弗洛依德就卡在这个盛行。在材料上,弗洛依德理论的解释的秩序,从头到尾,这是一个一成不变的,盛行的一成不变。他从来没有将它隶属于,或将它的位置相对化,在主观的互相运作的理论的制约。在那里,任何精神分析的现象的历史被铭记。环绕着弗洛依德,在精神分析的社团,我们想要给予它一些均称或相等的东西。但是在他的著作里,阳具的客体占据中心的位置,在生命力比多的经济,无论是男人或女人。

This is an altogether essential fact, characteristic of all the theorizing given
and maintained by Freud – whatever reworking he brought to his theorizing,
throughout all the phases of the schematization he was able to give of psychic
life, the prevalence of the phallic center was never modified.

这是非常基本的事实,作为弗洛依德所给予并维持的所有的理论化的特色。无论他给予他的理论化怎样的重新建构,在他能够給与心灵生命的基模的所有的部分里面,阳具中心的盛行是从来没有被修改的。

If there is some truth in Mrs. Macalpine’s remarks – and this is however
the only thing that she doesn’t really make evident – it’s that, effectively, in
Schreber castration is never an issue. The Latin term that is used in German,
eviratio – Entmannung, means in the text transformation, with all that this
word conveys of transition, into a woman – it’s not castration at all.2 This
doesn’t matter, Freud’s analysis makes the entire dynamics of the subject
Schreber revolve around the theme of castration, of the loss of the phallic
object.

假如在马卡派恩的谈论,有某个真理,这是唯一她没有确实明显表示的东西。实际上,那就是,许瑞伯的阉割从来就不是问题。在德文里被使用的拉丁文术语eviratio – Entmannung, 在文本里意思是「转变」。这个字词传达有关转换的一切,那就是,「转变成为女人」。它根本就不是阉割。这并不重要,弗洛依德的精神分析许瑞伯这位主体的整个的生命动力环绕阉割的主题旋转,阳具的客体的丧失的主题。

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

精神病 350

April 26, 2014

精神病 347
雅克、拉康

Before I finish I would like to draw your attention to the significant, indeed
unfortunate, words that Flechsig said to Schreber on the occasion of his relapse
when the latter arrived for his consultation in an extremely disturbed state.
Flechsig had already been elevated for him to the value of an eminent paternal
character. The function of paternity had previously already been put on
alert or in suspension. We know from his testimony that he had hoped to
become a father, that over the pecriod of eight years separating the first from
the second crisis his wife had had several spontaneous abortions. Now, Flechsig
said to him that since the previous occasion enormous progress has been
made in psychiatry and that they are going to give him one of those short
sleeps that will be very fertile.16

在我结束之前,我想要提醒你们注意这些具有意义,但是诚属不幸的话语,弗列西格对许瑞伯说的话语,在他复发之时。当许瑞伯前来谘商治疗,处于极端困扰的状态。对于他而言,弗列西格已经被提升到杰出父权人物的价值。父权的功能先前已经被保留作为警惕。我们从他的证词获知,他曾经希望成为一位父亲,经过第一次危机与第二次危机区隔的八年的时期,他的妻子已经有好几次自动地堕胎。现在,弗列西格对他说,自从先前的场合以来,精神医学已经有了重大的进步。他们将要给他将会很有帮助的短期睡眠治疗。

Perhaps this was just the thing not to say. From this moment our Schreber
no longer slept and that night he tried to hang himself.

或许,这就是不该说出的事情。从这个时刻开始,我们的许瑞伯就不再睡觉,那天晚上,他尝试上吊自杀。

The relation of procreation is in fact implicated in the subject’s relationship
to death. I shall keep this for next time.
27 June 1956

生殖的事实上关系牵涉到主体跟死亡的关系。我保留下这个到一次。

精神病 347

XXV
The phallus and the meteor
第二十五章
阳具与流星

PREVALENCE OF CASTRATION
IDA MACALPINE
NATURAL SYMBOLIZATION AND SUBLIMATION
THE RAINBOW
INSERTED IN THE FATHER

阉割的盛行
艾达、马卡派恩
自然的象征化与升华
彩虹
被插入于父亲里

I’m not sure what to begin with to end this course. On the off chance, I’ve
put two small schemas on the board for you.

我并不确定,要用什么开始,为了结束这个课程。期望地,我曾经将两个小基模放置在黑板上,给你们看。

The first is an old one. It’s a sort of grid which I used at the start of this
year to try to show you how the problem of delusion is raised if we want to
structure it insofar as it appears to be a relation in some way linked to speech.
The second of these schemas is entirely new and I will have occasion to refer
to it shortly.
首先是一个旧的基模。那是一种框格,在今年开始,我用来尝试跟你们显示,幻觉的问题如何被提出,假如我们想要架构它。因为它似乎处于某种的关系,以某种跟言说连接的方式。第二个基模完全是新的。不久我将有机会提到它。

1
What I have put forward this year has been centrally concerned with placing
the emphasis back upon the structure of delusion. Delusion may be regarded
as a disturbance of the object relation and is therefore linked to a transference
mechanism. But I wanted to show you that all its phenomena, and I even
think I can say its dynamics, would be clarified in reference to the functions
and structure of speech. This will also free this transference mechanism from
all kinds of confused and diffuse object relations.

今年我已经提出的东西,主要的关心,是将强调放回到幻觉的结构。幻觉可能被认为是客体关系的扰乱,因此跟移情的机制息息相关。但是我想要跟你们显示,所有它的现象,将会被澄清,我甚至认为,我能够说出它的动力,关于言说的功能与结构。这也将会让移情的机制免除各种混淆与弥漫的客体关系。

By hypothesis, whenever one deals with a disturbance regarded overall as
immature, one refers to a linear developmental series derived from the immaturity
of the object relation. Now, experience shows that this unilinearity
leads to impasses, to inadequate, unmotivated explanations that superimpose
themselves on one another in a way that does not enable cases to be differentiated
and, first and foremost, obliterates the difference between neurosis
and psychosis. The mere experience of partial delusion mitigates against
speaking of immaturity, or even of regression or simple modification of the
object relation.

每当我们处理大体上被认为是不成熟的困扰,假设上,我们提到的是,从客体关系的不成熟而获得的直线发展的系列。现在,经验显示,这种单一直线发展会导致僵局,导致不充分,而且没有引起动机的解释。这些解释彼此重叠一块,并无法让各种个案被区别出来。尤其重要的是,它抹除神经症与精神病之间的差异。光是部分的幻觉的经验,就会缓和,无法谈论到不成熟,或甚至是倒退,或简单地修正客体关系。

The same thing goes if one refers to the neuroses alone. Next year we shall
see that the notion of object relation isn’t univocal, when I begin by contrast-
ing the object of phobias with the object of perversions. This will be to take
up again, at the level of the category of object, the problem of the relations
between the subject and the other, two terms which, regarding the psychoses,
are opposed.

假如我们仅是提到神经症,也是相同的情况。明年,我们将看见,客体关系的观念并不是无可置疑的,当我开始对照恐惧的客体与变态的客体。这将会再次探讨到主体与他者的关系的问题,在客体的范畴的层次。关于精神病,这两个术语是对立的。

I left you last time with two opposed descriptions, Freud’s and that of a
psychoanalyst who is far from being without merit and, while representing
the most modern tendencies, has at least the advantage of doing so very intelligently.
Let’s briefly summarize Freud’s position on the subject of Schreber’s delusion
and the objections brought against him, and let’s see if anything like a
better solution has even begun to be outlined.

上次我用两个对立的描述作为结束。弗洛依德与描述与一位精神分析师的描述。后者并非没有优点,当他代表最现代的趋向,他至少拥有现代知识处理的这个优势。让我们简短总结弗洛依德对于许瑞伯的幻觉的主体的立场,以及对他不利的各种反对意见。让我们看出,是否有更好的解决甚至被描绘出轮廓出来。

For Freud, we’re told, Schreber’s delusion is linked to the irruption of a
homosexual tendency. The subject negates it, defends himself against it. In
his case, which isn’t the case of a neurotic, this negation ends in what we
might call divine erotomania.

我们被告诉,对于弗洛依德,许瑞伯的幻觉跟同性恋倾向的发作息息相关。主体否认它,防卫他自己,对抗它。在他的情况,那并不是神经症的情况,这种否认结果是我们所称为的色情狂。

You know how Freud divides up the various denials [delegations] of the
homosexual tendency. He starts from a sentence that symbolizes the situation
– / love him, a man.1 There is more than one way of introducing denial into
this sentence. One may say for example, Its not I who love him or, Its not
him I love or again, Far me there is no question of love, I hate him. Moreover,
he tells us, the situation is never simple and isn’t limited to a simple symbolic
reversal. For reasons that he takes to be implied sufficiently, but upon which
as a matter of fact he doesn’t insist, an imaginary reversal of the situation
occurs in only a part of the three terms, namely / hate him is for example
transformed through projection into He hates me. In our case, Ifs not him I
love, its someone else, a big He, God himself, is inverted into He loves me, as
in all erotomania. It is clear that Freud is indicating that the final result of
defense against the homosexual tendency can’t be understood in the absence
of a very advanced reversal of the symbolic apparatus.

你们知道,弗洛依德如何区分,对于同性恋倾向的各种的否认。他从象征这个情况的一个句子开始:「我爱他,一个男人。」要将否认介绍进入这个句子,不只一个方式。譬如,我们可以说「爱他的并不是我」,或「我爱的并不是他」,或「对我而言,并不存在爱的问题,我恨他。」而且,他告诉我,这个情况永远不是简单的,并没有极限于简单的象征的逆转。因为他认为是充分被暗示的理由,但事实上,他并没有坚持这个理由,情况的想象的逆转仅是发生在这三个术语的一部分。换句话说,譬如,「我恨他」通过「他恨我」的投射到转换。在我们的情况,「我爱的并不是他,而是某位其他的人,一位大他者的他,上帝的自身」,被逆转成为「他爱我」,如同在所有的色情狂。显而易见地,弗洛依德指示著,假如欠缺象征工具的深度逆转,防卫对抗同性恋的的最后结果,无法被理解。

Everything may therefore appear to revolve around defence. It must
undoubtedly be very intense indeed to propel the subject into trials that extend
to nothing less than the derealization, not only of the external world in general,
but of the very people around him, even those he is closest to, including
the other as such. This necessitates an entire delusional reconstruction, following which the subject gradually resituates, though in a profoundly disturbed
way, a world in which he is able to recognize himself, in an equally
disturbed way, as destined – at a time projected into the uncertainty of the
future, at a date that is indeterminate but that certainly cannot be delayed –
to become the subject par excellence of a divine miracle, that is, to be the
support and feminine receptacle of the recreation of all humanity. Schreber’s
delusion in its final state presents with all the megalomaniacal characteristics
of delusions of redemption in their most highly developed form.

每样东西因此似乎环绕着防卫旋转。无可置疑地,要将主体推进各种考验,这种防卫必然会很强烈。因为这些考验实实在在就是跟现实脱节,不但是跟一般的外在世界脱节,而是跟他周围的人们脱节。甚至跟他最亲密的人脱节,包括他者自身。这让幻觉的重新建构就有必要。在幻觉的重新建构之后,主体逐渐重新建立一个他能够体认出他自己的世界,虽然是以饱受困扰的方式,以一个同样受困扰的方式,作为是命运注定。当他被投射到未来的不确定当中,在一个不确定的日期,但是确实不能再拖延的日期。为了要成为神性奇迹的优秀的主体。换句话说,要成为重新创造人类的女性容器的支持。许瑞伯的幻觉在它的最后的状态,以充分发展的形态,呈现救赎的幻觉的夸大狂的特性。

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

精神病 346

April 21, 2014

精神病 346
雅克、拉康

What we have just been emphasizing will enable us next time to see what
is lacking in each of the two points of view developed by Freud and Mrs. Ida
Macalpine.

我们刚刚强调的东西,将让我们下次能够看出,弗洛依德于马卡派恩发展的两个观点,各自欠缺什么。

Freud posits a latent homosexuality that is supposed to imply a feminine
position – this is where the leap is. He speaks of a fantasy of fertilizing
impregnation, as if the thing were self-evident, as if every acceptance of the
feminine position implied in addition this register that is so developed in
Schieber’s delusion and that aids up making him into the wife of God. Freud’s
theory is that the only way for Schreber to avoid what results from the fear
of castration is Entmarmung, unmanning, or simply emasculation, transfor-
mation into a woman – but after all, as Schreber himself observes somewhere,
isn’t it better to be a spirited woman than a poor unfortunate man,
oppressed, or even castrated?13 In short, the solution to the conflict introduced
by latent homosexuality is found in an enlargement to the size of the
universe.

弗洛依德假设一个潜在的同性恋,被认为暗示着女性的立场。这就是跳跃所在地地方。他谈论人工授孕的幻想,好像事情是自明的,好像对于女性立场的充分接受,除外暗示着许瑞伯妄想如此发展的这个铭记,这个铭记充当让他成为上帝的妻子的辅助。弗洛依德的理论是,让许瑞伯避免因为恐惧阉割所造成的结果的唯一方法,就是不要成为男人,或是丧失男子气概,转变成为女人。但是,毕竟,如同许瑞伯自己在某个地方观察,精神上成为女人,难道不是比可怜的不幸的男人更好?比被压迫,或甚至被阉割的男人更好?总之,潜在的同性恋所介绍的冲突的解决,当扩大到宇宙那么大时,被发现。

On the whole, Freud’s theory is the one that best respects the balance of
the psychosis’s progress. It’s nevertheless certain that Mrs. Macalpine’s
objections are a worthy reply to Freud, even a worthy complement to a part
of his theory.14 She emphasizes, as being determinant in the process of psychosis,
a fantasy of pregnancy, thus evoking a rigorous symmetry between
the two great lacks that can manifest themselves as neuroticizing in each sex.
She goes a long way in this direction and says some very amusing things to
which the text lends support, including in the background the evocation of a
heliolithic civilization where the sun, regarded as feminine and incarnated in
stones, is said to be the fundamental symbol matching the promotion of the
phallus in classical theory. There is a correspondence in the very name of the
town in which Schreber is hospitalized, Sonnenstein.15

大体上,弗洛依德的理论是最能尊重精神病的进展的平衡的理论。可是,确定的是,马卡派恩的反对看法,是对弗洛依德的宝贵的回答,甚至是对他的部分理论的宝贵补充。她强调,作为精神病的过程的决定因素,怀孕的幻想,因此联想到一种严格的均称,处于两个广大的欠缺之间。这两个广大欠缺能够证明它们自己,作为每个性别的脑神经。她朝这个方向努力良久,然后说出某些文本获得支持的耐人寻味的事情。在背景包括引用泛埃及文明。在那里,太阳被认为是阴性,用石头具体表现。这据说是基本的象征,跟古典理论的提升阳具,可以匹配。许瑞伯被送入医院的城市的名字,Sonnenstein.,有一个对应。

In the concrete analyses of the least neurotic of people we are constantly
encountering this mischievous mockery by the signifier, where unusual homonyms
from all the corners of the horizon strangely intersect and appear to
give a unity, sometimes ungraspable by any other means, both to the entire
destiny of a subject and to his symptoms. It’s surely less appropriate here
than elsewhere to retreat from this investigation where the moment of onset
of psychosis is concerned.

当我们具体分析即使稍具神经症的人们,我们不断地遭遇能指点这个恶作剧的嘲讽。在那里,从地平线的各个角落而来的不寻常的同义词,互相交会,并且似乎给出一致性。有时用任何别的方法并无法理解,给予主体的整个的命运与他的病症。在精神病的开始息息相关的地方,我们若是从这个研究彻退,确实是最不合宜。

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

精神病 345

April 20, 2014

精神病 345
雅克、拉康

In short, this case demonstrates very well the connection between the register
of paternity and the blossoming of revelations, of annunciations regarding
generation, namely, precisely what the subject is literally unable to conceive
– and it’s not by chance that I use this word. The question of generation, a
term of alchemical speculation, is always there ready to emerge as a response
by detour, as an attempt to reconstitute what isn’t receivable for the psychotic
subject, for the ego whose power is invoked without his being strictly
speaking capable of a response.

总之,这个个案清楚地证明,父权的铭记与启蒙的盛开,关于产生的宣告的盛开之间的关系。换句话说,确实就是主体实质上不能够构想的东西。我使用这个字,并非是偶然的。产生的这个问题,炼金术的沉思的术语,总是在那里,准备迂回出现,作为回应。作为企图重新建构所被接收的东西,对于精神病的主体。对于力量被召唤的自我,但是严格来说,他的生命实存并没有能够回应。

Henceforth, beyond every signifier able to be significant for the subject,
the only response can be the permanent and, I would say, constantly sensitized
employment of the signifier as a whole. We can in fact observe that the
memorizing commentary accompanying all human acts immediately finds itself
revived, spoken out loud in the emptiest and the most neutral of forms, and
becomes the ordinary mode of relation of an ego unable to find its respondent
in the signifier at the level from which it’s interpellated.

因此,超越对于主体能够具有意义的每个能指之外,唯一的回应有时是永久的。我不妨说,并且能够不断地被感知地运用能指,作为整体。事实上,我们能够观察,伴随着所有的人类的行动的记忆的行动,马上就会发现它自己被复活起来。用最空洞,最中立的形式,大声地被说出。并且变成自我的关系的普通模式。这个自我并无法在能指那里,找到它的回应者,处于它被指令的层次。

Precisely because he is interpellated on terrain where he is unable to respond,
the only way to react that can reattach him to the humanization he is tending
to lose is to make himself permanently present in this slender commentary
on the stream of life that constitutes the text of mental automatism. The
subject who has crossed this limit no longer has the customary significant
security, except through the accompaniment of a constant commentary on
his gestures and acts.

确实是因为他被指令,在他无法回应的平台,唯一反应的方式,能够将他跟他正在倾向于丧失的人性化重新联接一块。就是让他自己永久地存在于这个贫瘠的评论,对于形成精神自动机制的文本的生命之流。能够跨越这个极限的主体,不再拥有这习惯的意义的安全,除了通过不断评论他的姿态与行动的伴随。

These phenomena present an exceedingly rich character in the case of President
Schreber, but they are not specific to him since they enter into the very
definition of mental automatism. This justifies the use of the word automatism,
of which so much use has been made in mental pathology without one’s
really knowing what one was saying. The term has a fairly precise sense in
neurology where it characterizes certain phenomena of liberation, but its
employment by analogy in psychiatry remains problematic at the very least.

在许瑞伯庭长的个案,这些现象呈现一种非常丰富的特性,但是对于他,它们并不明确,因为它们进入精神自动机制的这个定义。这让「自动机制」的这个字词能够自圆其说。在精神病理学,「自动机制」这个字词经常被使用,但是我们并没有确实知道,我们说的是什么。在脑神经学,这个术语具有非常明确的意义。在那里,它表现自由解放的某些现象。但是在精神分裂症,它的类比的运用至少始终的问题重重。

It’s nevertheless the most appropriate word in de Cllrambault’s theory if you think of the distinction, completely forgotten today, that Aristotle makes
between automaton and fortune.12 If we go straight to the signifier, that is to
say on this occasion with all the reservations that such a reference comprises,
straight to etymology, we see that automaton is what really thinks by itself
without any link to that beyond, the ego, which gives thought its subject. If
language speaks all alone, the occasion to use the term automatism is now or
never, and this is what gives the term de Cterambault used its resonance of
authenticity, its satisfying side for us.

可是,在克蓝伯特的理论,这是最合适的字词,假如你们想到这个区别,今天完全被忘记的区别,亚里斯多德所做的区别,关于自动机制与命运之间的区别。假如我们直接到能指,换句话说,在这个场合,带着这样一个指称包含的保留。直接到词源学,我们看出,「自动机制」是自身在确是思维的东西。跟那个超越,考虑到主体的自我,没有关系。假如语言完全是单独言说,使用「自动机制」的这个场合,要就是现在。这就是克蓝伯特使用的这个术语,具有它的真诚的共鸣的原因,对于我们,它具有令人满意的一面。

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

精神病 344

April 19, 2014

精神病 344
雅克、拉康

3
This is precisely the point at which this so singular phenomenon is located
that has had all the commentators on President Schreber scratching their
heads – the puzzling soul murder, as he calls it.

这确实是如此独特的现象被发现的点。这个点曾经让对许瑞伯庭长的评论者伤透脑筋—这个令人困惑的「灵魂的谋杀」,如他所称呼的。

This phenomenon, which for him is the signal of the onset of psychosis,
may for the rest of us, the commentator-analysts, adopt all sorts of meanings,
but it cannot be placed anywhere else than in the imaginary field. It relates to the short-circuiting of the affective relation, which makes the other a being
of pure desire who henceforth can only be, in the register of the human
imaginary, a being of pure interdestruction. There is a purely dual relation
here, which is the most radical source of the very register of aggressiveness.
Freud didn’t miss this, moreover, but he discussed it in the homosexual register.
This text offers us a thousand proofs of what I am putting forward, and
this is perfectly coherent with our definition of the source of aggressiveness
and its emergence when the triangular, oedipal relation finds itself to be shortcircuited,
when reduced to its dual simplification.

对他而言,这个现象是精神病开始的讯号。对于我们其余的人们,评论者及精神分析家,这个现象可能具有各种的意义,但是它仅能被放置在想像的领域,而不是任何其他地方。它个你情感关系的短路迴圈息息相关。情感关系让他者成为纯粹欲望的存在者。在人类想像的铭记里,他仅能够是纯粹互相毁灭的存在者。在此有一个纯粹的双重关系,那是侵凌性的铭记,最激烈的来源。而且,弗洛依德并没有错过这一点,但是他讨论它,用同性恋的铭记。这个文本提供我们上千的证据,对于我正在提出的东西。这跟我们对于侵凌性的来源的定义,是非常一致的。它出现在当三角形的伊狄浦斯情结的关系发现它自己成为迴圈短路,当它被简化成为它的双重的简化。

344

Undoubtedly we lack the elements in the text that would enable us to get
a better grasp of Schreber’s relations with his father, with a certain presumed
brother, whom Freud also makes a great deal of. But we don’t need anything
more to understand that it’s necessarily via the purely imaginary relation that
the register of the you must pass at the moment at which it’s evoked, invoked,
interpellated from the Other, from the field of the Other, by the emergence
of a signifier that is primordial but excluded for the subject. I named this
signifier last time – Thou art the one who is, or who will be, a father. As a
signifier it can in no way be received, insofar as the signifier represents an
indeterminate support around which there is grouped and condensed a number,
not even of meanings, but of series of meanings, which come and converge
by means of and starting from the existence of this signifier.

无可置疑地,我们在文本里欠缺让我们能够更加理解许瑞伯跟他的父亲的关系这些元素,跟某位被假定他的兄弟的关象。弗洛依德非常看重这位兄弟。但是我们并不需要任何更多的东西,为了要理解,它必然是凭借这个纯粹想像的关系,这个「你」的铭记必须通过这个纯粹的想像的关系,在它被召唤的这个时刻,被召唤,被指令,从大他者,从大他者的领域,由对于主体而言,是原初,但是被排除的能指的出现。我上次讲出这个能指的名称—「你是这位作为父亲,或将成为父亲的这个人」。作为能指,它根本无法被接收,因为这个能指代表一种不确定的支持。环绕这个支持,有许多,还不算是意义,而是意义的系列,被聚拢一块,并且被浓缩。这些意义的系列前来汇集,凭借以及从这个能指的存在开始。

Before the Name-of-the-Father there was no father, there were all sorts of
other things. If Freud wrote Totem and Taboo, it was because he thought he
could glimpse what there was, but before the term father was instituted in a
certain register historically there was certainly no father. I am only giving
you this perspective as a pure concession, for it interests me in no manner or
degree. I’m not interested in prehistory, except to indicate that it’s fairly
likely that Neanderthal man lacked a certain number of essential signifiers.
There’s no point in searching so far back, for we can observe this lack in
subjects within our reach.

在以父之名之前,并没有父亲,而有各种各样的其他的东西。假如弗洛依德写「图腾与禁忌」,那是因为他认为他能够瞥见当时存在的东西,但是在「父亲」这个术语用某种铭记被创始之前,历史上确实并没有父亲。我现在仅售给予你们这个观点,作为是纯粹的让步,因为我对它根本就不感到興趣。我对史前不感到興趣,除了指示,很有可能,史前尼安德塔人欠缺某些基本的能指。如此遥远回溯地探索并无意义,因为我们在我们附近的主体,就能观察到这种欠缺。

Observe this crucial moment carefully and you will be able to pick out this
passage in the onset of every psychosis – it’s the moment at which from the
Other as such, from the field of the Other, there comes the interpellation of
an essential signifier that is unable to be received.

请你们仔细观察这个重要的时刻,你们就能够挑选出这个段落,作为每位精神病的开始。就在这个时刻,大他者自身,从大他者的领域,会有一个基本的能指的指令,无法被接收到。

In one of my case presentations I happened to show a West Indian whose
family history brought out the problematics of the original ancestor. This
was a Frenchman who had gone and introduced himself over there, a sort of
pioneer, who had led an extraordinarily heroic life, involving all sorts of high-
points and lowpoints in his fortunes, and who had become an ideal for the
entire family. Our West Indian, extremely deracinated from the region of
Detroit where he had been leading quite a comfortable life as a craftsman,
found himself one day in possession of a woman who announced to him that
she was going to have a baby. It wasn’t known whether it was his or not, but
nevertheless within several days his first hallucinations declared themselves.
Barely had it been announced to him, You are going to be a father when a
character appeared to him telling him, You are Saint Thomas. It must have
been, I think, Saint Thomas the Doubter and not Saint Thomas Aquinas.
The annunciations that followed leave no room for doubt – they came from
Elizabeth, the one to whom it was announced very late in life that she was
going to bear a child.

在我的一个个案呈现当中,我偶尔呈现一位西部印地安人,他的家庭历史显示原初祖训的棘手问题。这是一位法国人曾经前往那里自我介绍。他是一位拓荒者,曾经过着非常英雄式的生活,在他的命运里,牵涉到各色各样的高潮与低潮。我们的西部印地安人,被强迫迁离德特罗地区,在那里,他曾经过着相当舒适的生活,作为一位艺匠。有一天,他发现自己拥有一个女人,跟他宣告说,她将要生小孩。是不是就是他的小孩,并不清楚,但是在几天内,他的各种幻觉呈现出来。刚刚才跟他宣告「你将要成为父亲」,有一个人就出现在他面前,告诉他说「你是圣汤玛斯」。我认为,那一定是圣汤玛斯,这位怀疑论者,而不是圣汤玛斯、阿奎那。随后的宣告没有可置疑的空间—他们都来自伊莉莎白,她在生命晚年,被宣告,她将会生小孩。

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

精神病 342

April 6, 2014

精神病 342
雅克、拉康

Let’s take the next step. It concerns the other’s being recognized as an
other. What, then, is required for the other to be recognized as an other?
What is this other? He is the other insofar as he figures in a sentence of
mandate. We have to pause at this for a moment.

让我们採取下一步。它跟他者的生命实存被体认作为他者有关。因此,为了让他者被体认作为一位他者,需要什么?这位他者是什么?他是他者,因为他被列入托管的判决里。我们必须对此稍停一下。

Recognition of the other doesn’t constitute an unattainable limit, since we
have also seen that the disappearing otherness of the ego’s imaginary identification
only encounters the you at an extreme point at which neither is able
to subsist together with the other. The Other, with a big O, has to be recognized
beyond this relationship, even reciprocal relationship, of exclusion. It
has to be recognized in this disappearing relation as being just as elusive as I.
In other words, it must be invoked as what it is unaware of about itself. This
is indeed the sense of Thou art the one who wilt follow me.

对于他者的体认并没有形成一种无法获得的限制。因为们也曾经看见过,自我的想像的认同的逐渐消失的他者,仅是在极端的点遭遇这个「你」。在这个极端的点,没有一个能够跟他者一起共存。大他者,大写字母的大他者,必须被体认,超越这层关系。甚至是互惠的关系,排除的关系。大他者必须被体认,在这个逐渐消失的关系,作为是跟「我」一样地闪躲不定。换句话说,它必须被召唤,作为关于它自己,它所不知道的东西。这确实是「你是我要你跟随我的这个人」的意义。

If you examine this closely, if Thou art the one who wilt follow me is a
delegation, indeed a consecration, then it’s insofar as the response isn’t a play
on words but an I follow you, I am,91 am what thou hast just said. There is a
usage of the third person that is absolutely essential to discourse in that it
designates what its very subject matter is, that is, what has been said. Je le
suis, ce que tuviens de dire, I am it, what thou hast just said, which as it happens
means exactly -I am very precisely what I am ignorant of, since what thou hast
just said is absolutely indeterminate, I don’t know where thou wilt lead me. The
full response to the Thou art the one who wilt follow me is I am it.

假如你们仔细检视这个,假如「你是我要你跟随我的这个人」,是一位代表,确实是一位奉献。那么,这种回应并不是玩文字遊戏,而是一个「我跟随你,故我在。我就是你刚刚所说的那个人。」有一个第三人称的用法,对于辞说绝对的重要,因为它指明它的主体的物质是什么。也就是,所曾经被说的这个人。「我就是它,你刚刚所说的这个人。」恰巧地,它确实就是意味着,「我确实就是我对它一无所知的这个人。因为你刚刚所说的东西,绝对是没有决定性。我并不知道,你要引导我到哪里去。」对于「你是我要你跟随我的这个人」的充分回应是:「我就是它。」

You know the fable of the tortoise and the two ducks.I0 The tortoise turns
up at the crucial moment when the ducks have offered to take him with them
to America, and everybody is waiting to see this little tortoise stuck onto the
traveler’s staff – The Queen? says the tortoise, Oui, vraiment, je la suis, Yes,
really, I am she. Pichon asks himself huge questions to discover whether it’s
a question of a queen in the abstract or a concrete queen and speculates, in a
disconcerting way for someone who had a bit of finesse in grammatical and
linguistic matters, on the question of whether she ought not to have said, Je
suis elle. Had the tortoise been speaking of an existing queen, she could have
said any number of things, for example, Je suis la reine, I am the Queen, but
since she saysje la suis, in referring to what you have just spoken of, there
is no distinction to be made, it suffices to know that this la, her, concerns
what is implied in the discourse.

你们知道乌龟与两隻鸭子的寓言。乌龟出现在重要的时刻,当两隻鸭子曾经承诺要带他们去美国。每个人都等待要看见这隻乌龟被塞进旅客的行李里。「皇后?」乌龟说,「我就是她。」皮琼询问他自己巨大的问题,为了发现是否这是皇后的问题,无论是抽象或具体的皇后,并且沉思,狼狈不堪地,对于文法与语言的问题能稍微细腻分辨的人而言。他沉思这个问题:她是否本来不应该说:「我就是她 」。假如乌龟当时谈论到一个现存的皇后,它本来可以说出一些事情。譬如,「我就是皇后」。但是因为她说「我就是她」,提到你们刚刚谈论到事情,并没有任何区别能够被分辨。我们只要知道,这个「她」,跟辞说所暗示的东西息息相关。

What is implied in the discourse is indeed what is at issue. We must pause
for a moment at this inaugural speech of the dialogue and take stock of the
enormity of the Thou art the one who wilt follow me. It’s to the thou itself, as
the unknown, that we address ourselves. This is what gives it its naturalness,
and its force as well, and also what makes it pass from thou art into the wilt
follow of the second part, where it persists. It persists there precisely because
in the meantime it may decline there. In this formula it’s therefore not an I,
insofar as I cause it to be seen, that I address myself to, but all the signifiers
that make up the subject opposite me. I say all the signifiers he possesses, his
symptoms included. We address ourselves both to his gods and to his demons,
and for this reason this way of stating the sentence I have until now been
calling the mandate I shall now call the invocation, with this term’s religious
connotations.

在辞说里被暗示的东西,确实是具有争议性的东西。我们必须稍停一下,对于这个对话的开始的言说。并且注意「你是我要你跟随我的这个人」的庞大。就是对于这个「你」的本身,作为未知者,我们自己在做对谈。这就是给予它,它的自然与它的力量的东西。而且,也是让它从「你是」,通过进入第二部分的「要你跟随」,它存在那里。它存在那里,确实是因为它同时也可能在那里衰微。在这个公式,它因此并不是一个「我」。因为我让我与之对谈到这个我被看见。但是组成主体的所有能指,跟我对立。我说他拥有所有的能指,他的病征被包括在内。我们不仅跟他的众神,而且跟他的恶魔对谈。因为这个理由,陈述我迄今一直称为是代表的这个句子的方式,我现在将称之为召唤,用这个术语具有的宗教意涵。

An invocation isn’t an inert formula. It’s that by which I get that faith
which is mine to pass into the other. In good authors, perhaps in Cicero, an
invocation in its original religious form is a verbal formula by means of which,
before combat, one tries to make favorable to oneself what I was just calling
the gods and demons, the enemy’s gods, the signifiers. It’s to them that the
invocation is addressed, and this is why I think that the term invocation is
suited to designate the most elevated form of the sentence, where all the
words I pronounce are true words, evocative voices to which each of these
sentences must reply, the insignia of the veritable other.

召唤并不是惰性的公式。凭借这个召唤,我获得属于我的那个信心,为了通过进入他者。就优秀的作者,譬如西塞录,召唤的原先的宗教的形式,是一种文辞的公式。凭借这个公式,在战斗之前,我们尝试让我刚刚称为是众神与恶魔,敌人的众神,这些能指,来对我有利。这个召唤是针对它们对谈。这就是为什么我认为,「召唤」这个术语,适合于指明这个句子的最崇高的形式。在那里,我宣佈的所有的文字都是真实的文字,这些句子必须回应的召唤的声音,可验证的他者的标志。

You have just seen how it is that the you depends upon the signifier as
such. It’s on the level of the vociferated signifier that depend the quality and
the nature of the thou that is interpellated to respond. Henceforth, when the
latter lacks the signifier that carries the sentence, the I am the one that replies
to you can only play the part of an eternal interrogation. Thou art the one who
. . .what? The limiting case is the reduction to the preceding signifier -Thou
art the one who.. . , thou art the one who.. . , etc., Thou art the one who . . .
kilst me.11 The thou reappears indefinitely. This is how it is whenever, in the
appeal proffered to the other, the signifier falls into the field which for the
other is excluded, verworfen, unattainable. The signifier at this point produces
a reduction, but an intensified one, to the pure imaginary relation.

你们刚刚看见,你们是如何地依靠能指的本身。这个「你」的特质与天性,就是依靠大声被表达的能指的层次。这个「你」被指示要回应。因此,当后者欠缺带着句子的这个能指,跟你回答的「我就是这个人」,能够扮演永恒的质疑的角色。「你就是、、什么的这个人」。这个限制的情况就是被化简成为前述的能指。「你是、、、的这个人」,「你是、、、的这个人」,等等。「你是这个、、、杀死我的这个人」。这个「你」行踪不定地重新出现。这就是在对他者提出诉求时,每当这个能指掉入这个领域时,它无法被获得。对于他者,这个领域被排除。在此时,这个能指产生一种化简成为纯粹想象的关系,但这是一种强化对化简。

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

精神病 341

April 2, 2014

精神病341

雅克、拉康

 

We have come to the point at which there is no common measure between

ourselves and this you such as we have brought it out. There is ostension

necessarily followed by reabsorption, injunction followed by disjunction. In

order to have an authentic relationship with the other at this level and on this

plane, he must answer, Thou art the one wham I follow. Here we are on his

wavelength, and it’s he who guides our desire.

 

我们已经来到这个点,在我们自己与如同我们跟它显露出来的这个你」之间,没有共同的衡量。伪装后面必然跟随着重新吸收,指令后面必然跟随着中断。为了要在这个层次,这个层面,跟他者拥有真实的关系,他必须回答,你是我跟随的人」。在此,我们处于他的波长,他引导我们的欲望。

 

Tu e$ celui queje suis lends itself to a play on words.5 It’s the relationship

of identification with the other that is involved, but if we in fact guide one

another in our reciprocal identification towards our desire, we shall necessarily

encounter one another there, and we shall encounter one another in an

incomparable way, since it’s insofar as I am you that I am – here the ambiguity

is complete. Je suis isn’t only to follow, it’s also Je suis, et toi, tu es, I

am and thou art, and also, toi, celui qui, thou, the one who, to the point of

encountering, me tueras, wilt kill me. When the other is captured as an object

in the relation of ostension, we can only encounter this relation as a subjectivity

equivalent to our own on the imaginary plane, the plane of the mot ou

toi, I or thou, one or the other, all confusion is possible concerning the object

relation. The object of our love is only ourselves, it’s the tu es celui qui me

lues, thou art the one who kilst me.

 

Tu e$ celui queje suis有助于玩文字遊戏。“Thou art the one whom I follow,” “Thou art the one who I am,” “Kill theone whom I follow,” and “Kill the one who I am.”你是我跟随的这个人」,你是我存在的这个人」,请你杀死我跟随的这个人」,请你杀死我存在的这个人」。被牵涉到的是跟大他者的认同的关系。但是,假如我们事实上互相引导,在互惠的认同,朝向我们的欲望。我们将必然会在那里互相邂逅。我们将以无与伦比的方式互相邂逅。因为我是你,故我存在。在这种暧昧的完整的。Je suis并不是仅要跟随,它也是Je suis, et toi, tu es,我存在与你存在。也是toi, celui qui, thou,你」这个人,甚至邂逅时,会杀死我的人。当他者被捕获,作为处于伪装关系的客体。我们仅能邂逅这个关系,作为是在想象的层次相等我们自己的主体性。我或你的层次,此在与他在的层次。关于这个客体关系,可能会有各种混淆。

 

Observe the fortunate opportunity that the signifier offers us in French,

with the different ways of understanding tu es.6 One can make use of it indefinitely.

 

请你们观察这个幸运的机会,能指用法文提供给我们的机会,用不同的方式来理解tu es.。我们能够任意地使用它。

 

If I were to say to you that we do this all day long – instead of saying,

To be or not… to be or. .. ,7 one may say, Tu es celui quime. . .tues.. .,

Thau art the one who. . . me. . . thou art.. . , etc. This is the foundation of

the relationship with the other. In all imaginary identification, the tu es, thou

art, ends in the destruction of the other, and vice versa, because this destruction

is simply there in the form of transference and hides itself in what we

shall call thouness.

 

假如我对你们说,我们整天都做这个。而不是说:要活下去,或死亡、、、」。我们可能说:你是我、、、的这个人,你是、、、、等等。这是跟他者的关系的基础。在所有的想象的认同里,这个你是」,结果会毁灭大他者。反过来也是一样。因为这种毁灭在那里,仅是以移情的形式,并且隐藏它自己,在我们所谓的你在」。

 

In this respect I could have brought you a particularly disheartening and

stupid analysis of the type to be found in the famous Meaning of Meaning,

which elevates this kind of drivel to giddy heights.8 Similarly for this famous

passage in which it’s a matter of urging people who have the beginnings of

virtue to have at least the consistency to finish the job. One of them says

something like this – Toi quinepeux supporter le tu, tue-moi, Thou who canst

not bear the thou, kilst me. This is a reasonable idea – if you can’t bear the

truth of the thou, you can always be designated for what you are, namely a

scoundrel. If you want your neighbors’ respect, raise yourself to the notion

of normal distances, that is, to a general notion of the other, the order of the

world, and the law. This thou seems to have disconcerted commentators, and

as a matter of fact I think that today’s thouness will familiarize you with the register in question.

 

在这方面,我本来会带给你们特别令人灰心而愚蠢的这种分析,在著名的意义的意义」一书里能够被找到的这种分析。它提升这种无聊的讯息,到令人晕眩的高度。同样地,对于这个著名的段落,里面都是建议具有品德开端的那些人们,至少要有贯彻到底的一致性。其中一位说了某件事情,类似这个不能够忍受这个你的人们,请杀死我。」这是一个合理的观念。假如你们不能忍受这个你的真理,你们总是能够被设计成为你们本来的样子。换句话说,一位恶棍。假如你们想要你们邻居的尊敬,请提升你们到正常距离的观念。也就是说,到大者的一般的观念。世界与法律的秩序。这个你」似乎让评论者狼狈不堪。事实上,我认为,今天的你在」,将会让你们对受到质疑的这个铭记耳熟能详。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

精神病 340

March 30, 2014

精神病 340
雅克、拉康

Thou art the one who will follow me presupposes, I am saying, the imaginary
assembly of those who are the supports of the discourse, the presence of
witnesses, indeed, of the tribunal before which the subject receives the warning
or the opinion that he is called upon to reply to. As a matter of fact,
unless he replies I follow you, that is, unless he complies, there is at this level
no other response open to the subject than to maintain the message in the
very state in which it was sent to him, at the very most modifying the person,
than to inscribe it as an element of his internal discourse, which whether he
likes it or not is what he has to reply to in order not to follow it. It would
strictly speaking be necessary that he precisely not follow this indication at
all onto the terrain where it calls on him to reply, that is, that he refuse to
hear. He is taken there as soon as he hears. The refusal to hear is a force that
no subject, without special gymnastic training, is really capable of. It’s in this
register that the particular force of discourse becomes apparent.

我正在说的是,「你是愿意跟随我的人」预先假设那些人们的想像的集会,支持辞说的那些人们,见证人的存在。的确,法庭的存在。在这个法庭之前,主体接收他被召唤来回答的警告或意见。事实上,除非,他回答「我跟随你」,也就是说,除非他同意,在这个层次,并没有其他的回答开放给主体,除了就是维持这个讯息,在它被送给他的这个状态,在最修饰者,这个人。除了就是铭记它,作为他内部辞说的元素。无论他喜欢与否,这个辞说就是他必须回答的东西,为了跟随它。严格来说,这将是必要的,他根本就不应该遵循这个指示,进入它召唤它回答的这个平台。换句话说,他应该拒绝去听见。当他一听到,他就被带到那里。拒绝去听见是一个力量,没有主体能够做到的力量,假如没有经过特别的运动的训练。就在这个铭记,辞说的这个特别的力量变得明显。

In other words, at the level we have come to the .you is the other such as I
cause him to be seen [lefais voir] by means of my discourse, such as I designate
him or denounce him, he is the other insofar as he is captured in ostension
in relation to this everybody that the universe of discourse presupposes.
But by the same token I bring the other out of this universe, I objectify him
within it, I may even designate his object relations for him, should he so
much as ask me to, as is characteristic of the neurotic. That may go quite a
long way.

换句话说,大他者就在我们来到的这个「你」的层次,譬如,我让他被看见,凭借我的辞说,譬如我指明它,或抨击他,他就是这个大他者。因为他在伪装当中被捕捉,跟辞说的宇宙预先假定的「每个人」相关。但是同样地,我将大他者从这个宇宙带出来。我将他在宇宙之年客体化。我甚至指明他的客体关系,对于他而言。万一他甚至要求我,这是神经症者的特性。那可能相当过分。

Notice that it’s not entirely useless to give people what they ask for. It’s
just a question of whether it’s beneficial. In fact, if this has any incidental
effect, it’s insofar as it helps him to complete his vocabulary.

Those who
operate with object relations believe they are actually designating them, and
consequently it’s only rarely, and then by pure chance, that any beneficial
effect is produced. Completing his vocabulary may enable the subject to extract
himself from the signifying entanglement that constitutes the symptomatology
of his neurosis.

那些运作客体关系的人们相信,他们确实是在指明他们。结果,仅是罕见地,然后纯粹偶然地,任何有利的影响被产生。完成他的词汇可能让主体能够从能指化的纠缠挣脱出来。这种纠缠形成他的神经症的病症。

This is why things worked better whenever this addition
to the vocabulary, this Nervenanhang, to use the vocabulary of our delusional,
had still retained some of its freshness. Since then, what we have at our
disposal in our little exercise books as has greatly fallen in
value and doesn’t quite fill the function that one might hope for concerning
the resubjectification of the subject, by which I designate the operation of
extracting oneself from this signifying entanglement in which we have out-
lined the essence and very forms of the neurotic phenomenon.

这就是为什么事情运作得比较好,每当词汇的这种增加,使用我们的妄想症的词汇,依旧保留某些它的新鲜性。自从那时,我们能够利用到的东西,在我们那些小本的运动书,譬如Nervenanhang,价值就衰微。它并没有完全填补我们希望的这个功能,关于主体的重新主体化。凭借这个主体化,我指明这种运作,将自己从能指化的纠缠挣脱出来。在这种纠缠里,我们描绘神经症现象的本质与各种形式。

To handle this
object relation correctly, one would need to understand that in this relation
it’s the neurotic who is ultimately the object. It’s even for this reason that he
got lost as subject and seeks himself as an object.

为了正确地处理这个客体关系,为们将需要理解,在这个关系,神经症最后成为客体。甚至因为这个理由,他迷失作为主体,并且寻找他自己,作为客体。

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

精神病 339

March 29, 2014

精神病339

雅克、拉康

 

2

We can’t exhaust everything proposed to us concerning the analysis of this

 verb to be by the philosophers who have centered their meditation on the

question of Dasein, and especially Mr. Heidegger, who has begun to consider

it from the grammatical and etymological angle in texts that are quite faithfully

expounded in several articles that Monsieur Jean Wahl has recently

devoted to them.

 

我们无法穷尽一切哲学家跟我们建议的东西,关于这个成为」的动词的分析。那些哲学家曾经专注他们的沉思,在生命实存」的问题,特别是海德格。他曾经开始考虑这个问题,从文本里的文法及字源学的角度。这些文本在好几篇文章里,相当忠实地被诠释。曾、瓦尔最近探讨这些文本的文章。

 

Mr. Heidegger attaches a great deal of importance to the signifier at the

level of the analysis of the word and of conjugation, as it’s usually called –

let us more accurately say declension. In German as in French this famous

verb to be is far from being a simple verb and even from being one single

verb.

 

海德格非常重视这个能指,从字词与动词变化的分析的层次,如它通常被称呼的。让我们更加正确地说,词类变化。在德文,如同在法文,成为」的这个著名的动词,丝毫不是一个简单的动词,甚至,根本就不是单一的动词

 

It’s evident that the form suis, am, doesn’t come from the same root as

e$, art, est, is, Stes, [you] are, and as fut, [it] was, nor is there any strict equivalence

to the form iti, been. Whereas fut has an equivalent in Latin, as does

suis and the series of est, iti comes from another source, from stare. The

distribution is equally different in German where sind, [they] are, is grouped

with bist, art, whereas in French the second person is grouped with the third.

 

显而易见,am 的这个形式,并不是来自跟 is arewas  相同的字根。也没有任何严格的相等语,跟been 的这个形式。虽然 fut 在拉丁文有一个相等语,如同suis est 的系列,来自于另外一个来源,来自stare。在德文,这个分佈同样地不同。在德文,sind are),跟bistart 聚拢一块。虽然在法文,第二人称跟第三人称聚拢一块。

 

Three roots have been more or less uncovered for all the European languages,

those that correspond to sommes, [we] are, est and fut, which has been compared

with the root phusis in Greek, which is related to the idea of life and

growth. As to the others, Mr. Heidegger insists upon the two aspects, Sten

which would be closer to stare, to stand alone, and Verbahen, to last, to endure,

this sense being nevertheless attached to the source phusis. According to Mr.

Heidegger, the idea of standing erect, the idea of life and the idea of lasting,

enduring, is therefore what an etymological analysis combined with a grammatical analysis yields, and it’s out of a kind of reduction or of indeterminationcast over these senses as a whole that the notion of being emerges.

 

对于所有的欧洲的语言,三个字根曾经被揭露得差不多。对应于sommes, [we] are, est and fut,的那些字根,曾经被拿来跟希腊文的phusis的字根作比较。它跟生命与成长的观念息息相关。至于其他的字根,海德格坚持两个层面,比较靠近stare,单独存在的sten。而Verbahen是延续,持久。这些意义仍然跟phusis的来源息息相关。依照海德格,挺直站立的观念,生命的观念,延续,持久的观念,因此就是字源的分析跟文法的分析产生的东西。生命实存的观念的出现,就是这些时态作为整体投射的不确定的还原。

 

I summarize, so as to give you some idea of the thing. I must say that an

analysis of this order is rather inclined to elide, to mask, what Mr. Heidegger

is trying to initiate us into, namely that which is absolutely irreducible in the

function of the verb to be, the copulatory function pure and simple. One

would be mistaken to think that this function is disclosed through a gradual

shift in direction of these various terms.

 

我总结一下,为了让你们稍微理解这个物象。我必须说,这个秩序的分析相当倾向于闪躲,遮蔽。海德格尝试启发我们进入,也就是,绝对无法还原的东西,在to be这个动词的功能,纯净而简单的交媾的功能。假如我们认为,这个功能的显露,是通过缓慢的转变,朝著这些各式各样的术语的方向,那你们就错误了。

 

We raise this question – at what moment and by what mechanism does the

you, such as we have defined it as a form of punctuation, as an indeterminate

signifying mode of hooking on, achieve subjectivity? Well then, I believe that

it’s essentially when it’s taken in the copulatory function in pure form and in

the ostensive function. And it’s for this reason that I chose the exemplary

sentences that we started with – thou art the one who. . . .

 

我们提出这个问题在什么时刻,凭借怎样的心理机制,这个你」如何完成主体性?如同我们曾经定义它,作为一种标点的形式,作为挂钩的不确定度能指的模式。呵呵,我相信,这基本上它被看待,用单纯形式的交媾的功能,及伪装的功能。因为这个理由,我选择我们开始使用的这些例句的句,你是、、、、这个人」。

 

Which element is it that, elevating the you, makes it go beyond its indeterminate

function of boredom and begins to turn it, if not into subjectivity,

then at least into something that constitutes a first step towards the Thou art

the one who wilt follow me? It is the It i$ thou who will follow me. This is

ostension, which in fact implies the presence of the assembly of all those who,

whether or not united into a community, are supposed to form its body, to

be the support of the discourse in which ostension is inscribed. This it is thou

corresponds to the second formula, namely, thou art the one who will follow

 

是什么元素提升这个你」,让它超越它的不确定的无聊的功能,然后开始转变它,即使不是成为主体性,那么至少也是成为某件形成最初的起步,朝向你是我要你跟随我的人」。那就是愿意追随我的人是你」。这是伪装。事实上,它暗示着所有那些人们的聚会的存在。无论有没有团结成为一个社区,他们被认为形成它的团体,成为这个辞说的支持。伪装被铭记的辞说里。这个就是你」对应于第二个公司,也就是,你是愿意跟随我的人」。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

精神病 336

March 24, 2014

精神病 336
雅克、拉康

Let’s begin by pausing first at this thou, making the remark, which looks
self-evident but is rather rare, that the said thou has no literal meaning.
This isn’t merely because I address it indifferently to everyone – as a matter
of fact I address it to myself as well as to you, and virtually to all kinds of
things, I may thou something that is as foreign as is possible to me, I can say
thou to an animal, I can say thou to an inanimate object – this isn’t the point.

开始时,让我们先停在这个「你」,发表评论。这个「你」看起来不证自明,但是它相当罕见。所说的「你」并没有实质的意义。这不仅是因为我冷漠地对每个人都称「你」。事实上,我对自己也跟你一样称「你」,几乎是针对各色各样的事情都称「你」。对于对我是尽可能是外来的东西,我都称「你」。我可以对动物称「你」,我能够对没有生命的物体称「你」。这并不是重点。

Look closely at the formal, grammatical aspect of the thing. This is, moreover,
what every kind of usage of the signifier comes down to for you. You
will place meanings there despite yourselves. One may say that you believe
in grammar! Your entire schooling amounts, as intellectual gain, to your having
been made to believe in grammar. To be sure, you weren’t told as much,
since the aim would not have been achieved.

请你们仔细观看这件事的正式与文法的一面。而且,对你而言,这是能指的各种用法追根究底的东西。情不自禁地,你们将各种意义摆放那里。我们可以说,你相信文法!你们的整个学校的教导,作为知识的获得,就相等于是被迫要相信文法。的确,你们并没有同样被告诉,因为目的本来不会被完成。

Let’s therefore pause at some sentences like the following – If you poke
your nose outside you’ll get shot down. Or again – When you see the bridge you
turn right.1 Here the .you doesn’t have the subjective value of any reality of the
other whatsoever, it’s entirely equivalent to a site or a point – it introduces a
condition or temporality, it has the value of a conjunction.

让我们因此停在某些类似以下的句子:「假如你们探首自己外面,你们将会被射杀。」或者,「当你们看见桥梁,你们右转。」在此,你们根本没有拥有大者的任何现实界的主体性价值那完全相等于是一个地点,或一个点。它介绍一个情况或一个时间,它拥有连接词的价值。

This may seem rash to you, but I assure you that if you spoke a bit of
Chinese you would be convinced of it. One can have a lot of fun with Chinese
characters, with this one for example, which is the sign for a woman and the
sign for a mouth. The you is someone one addresses oneself to in giving him
an order, that is, as befits speaking to women. One may say a thousand other
things, so let’s not delay, and let’s stay with the you. The .you may be used in
this form to formulate the expression as if and in another form it’s used
unambiguously to formulate a when or an if, introducing a conditional.

对于你们,这似乎是冒犯。但是我告诉你们,假如你们会讲几句中文,你们就会相信它。对于中文字,我们可以得到许多乐趣。譬如这个例子。这是女人的记号,以及嘴巴的记号。这个「你」,是某个自言自语的人,当他给予他一个命令。也就是说,跟一位女人谈话合适的命令。我们可以说一千个其他的事情,所以让我们不要拖延,让我们跟这个「你」同在一块。这个「你」可以被使用,为了说明「好像」的这个表达。以另外一个形式,它清楚地被使用,为了说明一个「何时」或「好像」,介绍一个条件句。

If this thing is less apparent in our languages, and if we have some resistance
to understanding it and to acknowledging it in the examples I’ve just
given, this is solely a function of the prejudices of grammar, which prevent
you from hearing. The artifices of etymological and grammatical analysis force
you to insert the second person singular into this you. Of course, it is the
second person singular, but it’s a matter of knowing what it’s used for. In
other words, our you is related to elements existing in languages that are
described as having no inflection and that for us have the advantage of serving
to open up our minds a bit. They do in fact have particles at their disposal,
which are the curious signifiers whose usage, like that of our you, is singularly
multiple and sometimes so broad as to create a degree of confusion in our
descriptive grammars.

假如在我们的语言里,这件事并不那么明显,假如我们有某件的抗拒去理解它,抗拒去承认它,在我刚刚给出的例子。这仅是文法的偏见的功能。这些文法的偏见让你们无法听见。词源学与文法分析的技艺,强迫你们插入第二人称单数到这个「你」。当然,这是第二人称单数,但是问题是要知道,它被用来作什么用。换句话说,我们的「你」,跟存在于语言的各种元素息息相关。那些语言被描述为并没有字首的变化。对于我们,这些语言的优点就是让我们稍微敞开心胸。事实上,它们确实有某些分子听由使用。它们是耐人寻味的能指。这些能指的用途,就像我们的这个「你」的用途一样,独特具有多重性。有时,它们是如此广义,以致于在我们描述性文法里,会有某些的混淆。

Moreover, one would only need to write the least bit
phonetically to observe that differences in tonality or accent of the signifier
you have effects that go entirely beyond the identification of the person and
are completely different from this from the point of view of meaning.

而且,我们仅是需要稍微写下一点语音的的东西,就能够观察到,在「你」的这个
能指的语调或重音的差异,会产生一些影响,完全超越人称的认同。并且完全不同于从意义的观点的这个人称。

Attributing autonomy to the you as signified isn’t without its difficulties.
Let’s say that in general it has the value of an introduction, of a protasis as
we say, that which is placed before. This is the most general way of designating
what precedes the statement [£nonc£\ of what it is that gives the sentence
its importance.

将自主权归属于这个「你」,作为所指,并非没有困难之处。让我们说,通常,它具有作为介绍的价值,或是俗语说的「前导」。它被放置在前面。这是最通常的方式指明陈述的前面是什么,是什么给予这个句子它的重要性。

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