Archive for the ‘精神分析四个基本观念’ Category

精神分析四個基本觀念 402

August 20, 2011

Concept 401

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

4
OF THE NETWORK OF SIGNIFIERS
能指的網路

I am not saying that Freud introduces the subject into the world—the subject as distinct from psychical function, which is a myth, a confused nebulosity—since it was Descartes who did this. But I am saying that Freud addresses the subject in order to say to him the following, which is new—Here, in the field of the dream, you are at home. Wo es war, soil Ich werden.

我並不是說,佛洛伊德介紹這個生命主體,進入這個世界—這個生命主體跟心靈的功用迴不相牟,是個神話,是個混沌的星雲狀態—那是笛卡爾介紹的生命主體。我是在說,佛洛伊德處理這個生命主體,為了跟他說以下新穎的話:「在此,在夢的領域,你在自在。」

This does not mean, as some execrable translation would have it, Le moi doit dIloger le ça (the ego must dislodge the id). See how Freud—and in a formula worthy in resonance of the pre-Socratics—is translated in French.

這並不意味著,如同某些差勁的翻譯所說,「自我必須脫離本我」。你們看佛洛伊德在法文被翻譯成這個樣子—在一個迴響蘇格拉底前期很有價值的慣用語裏。

It is not a question of the ego in this soil Ich werden; the fact is that throughout Freud’s work—one must, of course, recognize its proper place—the Ich is the complete, total locus of the network of signifiers, that is to say, the subject, where it was, where it has always been, the dream. The ancients recognized all kinds of things in dreams, including, on occasion, messages from the gods—and why not?

問題不是自我處於這塊本我的土地上,事實上,在佛洛伊德的整個著作裏—我們當然必須認出它的適當地位—這個「本我」是能指的網路的完整及全部的軌跡。換句話說,生命主體,在他以前所在,它始終所在,也就是夢裏。古代人從夢裏體認出各種事情,包括有時候,從神祗傳來的訊息—這有何不可?

The ancients made something of these messages from the gods. And, anyway —perhaps you will glimpse this in what I shall say later—who knows, the gods may still speak through dreams.

古代人將來自眾神的這些訊息當著一回事。無論如何—或許你們將會在我後來所說的,瞥見這個—誰會知道,眾神祗可能依舊通過夢在說話。

Personally, I don’t mind either way. What concerns us is the tissue that envelops these messages, the network in which, on occasion, something is caught. Perhaps the voice of the gods makes itself heard, but it is a long time since men lent their ears to them in their original state—it is well known that the ears are made not to hear with.

就我個人而言,我並不介意哪一種方式。我們所關心的是,涵蓋這些訊息的組織,能指的網路,有時某件東西被逮住。或許是眾神的聲音使它自己被聽見,但是過了很久以後,人們才在它們原來的狀態豎耳傾聽他們—眾所周知,耳朵並不是為了用來傾聽它們而被創造。

But the subject is there to rediscover where it was—I anticipate —the real. I will justify what I have just said in a little while, but those who have been listening to me for some time know that I use, quite intentionally, the formula— The gods belong to
the field of the real.

但是,生命主體在那裏,為了重新發現它在那裏—我期盼著—在真實界。過一下子,我將會證明我剛剛說的話是有道理的。但是那些曾經傾聽我演講有一陣子的人,他們知道,我相當特意地使用這個慣用詞—-眾神屬於真實界的領域。

Where it was, the Ich—the subject, not psychology—the subject, must come into existence. And there is only one method of knowing that one is there, namely, to map the network. And how is a network mapped?

在它以前的位置,本我的位置—這個生命主體,並不是心理學—這個生命主體必須存在。僅有一個方法知道,他在那裏。也就是說,描繪出能指網路。這個能指網路如何被描繪?

One goes back and forth over one’s ground, one crosses one’s path, one crosschecks
it always in the same way, and in this seventh chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams there is no other confirmation for one’s Gewissheit, one’s certainty, than this—Speak of chance, gentlemen, if you like. In my experience I have observed nothing arbitrary in this field, for it is crosschecked in such a way that it escapes chance.

我們在自己的領域來回走動,我們跨越過我們的途徑,我們總是以相同方式反復檢查它。在「夢的解析」第七章,對於我們的確定性,沒有其他的確認,除了這個:「談到偶發性,先生,隨你高興怎麼說。根據我的精神分析經驗,在這個領域,沒有什麼任意性的東西,因為它反復再三地被檢查,不再有偶發性的可能。」

I would remind those who have already attended my lectures on this subject of letter fifty-two to Fliess, which comments on the schema that later, in The Interpretation of Dreams, is called optical.

我將會提醒那些已經參加我的演講的人,對於這寫過佛來斯的第五十二封信。這封信評論這個基模,後來在「夢的解析」,被稱為「視覺」。

This model represents a number of layers, permeable to something analogous to light whose refraction changes from layer to layer. This is the locus where the affair of the subject of the unconscious is played out.

這個模式代表許多層次,可讓類似光的東西滲透過,光的折射隨著每一層而改變。這就是這個軌跡,無意識的生命主體的事情被扮演。

And it is not, says Freud, a spatial, anatomical locus, otherwise how could one conceive it in the way it is presented to us? That is, as an immense display, a special spectre, situated between perception and consciousness.

佛洛伊德說,這並不是一種空間的解剖的軌跡,否則我們如何能夠以它呈現給我們的方式構想它?換句話說,作為一個巨大的展示,一個特別的魅影,被定位在感覺與意識之間。

You know that these two elements will later, when Freud establishes his second topography, form the perception— consciousness system, the Wahrnehmung —Bewusstsein, but one should not then forget the interval that separates them, in
which the place of the Other is situated, in which the subject is constituted.

你們知道,這兩個因素將會形成這個感覺與意識系統,這是佛洛伊德在他的第二個圖形建立的。但是我們不應該忘記隔開它們的中間部分,大它者的位置被擺放在那裏,生命主體在那裏被形成。

Well, to return to the letter to Fliess, how do the Wahrnehmung-szeichen, the traces of perception, function? Freud deduces from his experience the need to make an absolute separation between perception and consciousness—in order for these traces of perception to pass into memory, they must first be effaced in perception, and reciprocally.

呵呵,讓我們回頭談給佛來斯的信件。這個「感覺的痕跡」如何發揮功用?佛洛伊德根據他的經驗推論這個需要,要在感覺與意識之間做絕對的區分—為了讓那些感覺的痕跡通過到記憶。它們首先必須在感覺被抹除,反過了也是一樣。

He then designates a time when these Wahrnehmungszeichen must be constituted in
simultaneity. What is this time, if not signifying synchrony? And, of course, Freud says this all the more in that he does not know that he is saying it fifty years before the linguists.

他因此指明一個時間,當這些「感覺的痕跡」必須在相同時間被形成。這個時間,難道不就是能指的同時性嗎?當然,佛洛伊德更加強調這個,因為他並不知道他早於語言學家五十年說到它。

But we can immediately give to these Wahrnehmungszeichen their true name of signifiers. And our reading makes it quite clear that Freud, when he comes back to this locus in The Interpretation of Dreams, designates still other layers, in which the traces are constituted this time by analogy. What we have here are those functions of contrast and similitude so essential in the constitution of metaphor, which is introduced by a diachrony.

但是我們能夠立刻給這些「感覺到痕跡」,它們的能指的真實名稱。我們的閱讀清楚顯現:當佛洛伊德在「夢的解析」回到這個軌跡時,他指明依舊還有好幾層。在這幾層裏,感覺的痕跡這次是靠著類比組成。我們在此擁有的是,類比與近似的那些功用。它們在比喻的形成是如此重要,歷時性所介紹的比喻。

I won’t elaborate this point too much, because we must move on today. But I would like to say that we find in Freud’s articulations a quite unambiguous indication that what is involved in this synchrony is not only a network formed by random and contiguous associations.

我將不過分建構這一點,因為我們今天必須趕上進度。但是我想要說:我們在佛洛伊德的表達裏發現一個毫無曖昧的指示:這個同時性牽涉的內涵,不僅是由隨意而鄰近的聯想所形成的能指網路。

The signifiers were able to constitute themselves in simultaneity only by virtue of a very defined structure of constituent diachrony. The diachrony is orientated by the structure. Freud shows clearly that, for us, at the level of the last layer of the unconscious, where the diaphragm functions, where the pre-relations between the primary process and that part of it that will be used at the level of the pre-conscious are established, there can be no such thing as a miracle. It must, he says, have a relation with causality.

能指能夠同時地形成它們自己的本質,僅是憑藉形成的歷時性定義的結構。歷時性受到這個結構引導。佛洛伊德清楚地說,對於我們,在無意識的最後一層的層次,在那裏,橫膈膜會發揮功用,在那裏,原初的過程與橫膈膜之間的先前關係,將會被使用在前意識被建立的層次。這不可能是什麼奇跡的事情。他說,「它必然有因果律的關係。」

All indications cross-check one another and these checkings assure us too that we are rediscovering Freud— though we do not know whether it is here that we shall find our Ariadne’s thread, because, of course, we read it before formulating our theory of the signifier, but without being able, for the moment, to understand it. It is no doubt through the particular necessities of our experience that we have set at the heart of
the structure of the unconscious but the fact that we have found an enigmatic, unexplained indication of it in Freud’s text is for us a sign that we are progressing in the way of his certainty. For the subject of certainty is divided here —it is Freud who has certainty.

所有的指示互相反復檢查。這些檢查也告訴我們,我們正在重新發現佛洛伊德—雖然我們並不知道是否在那裏,我們將會找到阿力得尼賴以走出迷宮的線索。因為我們先閱讀它,才說明我們對於能指的理論。但是我們目前無法瞭解它。無可置疑的,憑藉我們精神分析經驗的這個特別的需要,我們在無意識的結構的核心,豎立這個因果的差距。但是我們在佛洛伊德的文本,發現有關它的一個謎團般無法解釋的指示。這個事實對我們指示一個跡象:我們正朝著「他」的確定性前進。因為這個確定性的生命主體在此被分開—–擁有確定性的是佛洛伊德。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 401

August 20, 2011

Concept 401

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

4
OF THE NETWORK OF SIGNIFIERS
能指的網路

Thoughts of the unconscious. 無意識的思想
The colophon of doubt 懷疑的標誌
Subversion of the subject 生命主體的顛覆
Introduction to repetition. 重複的介紹
The real is that which always comes back to the same place
真實界總是會回到原點的東西

It has been my habit to absent myself for the period of two of my seminars in order to go to that mode of ritual rest, spent in accordance with our customs, that we call winter sports. I am pleased to announce that this will not be the case this year, the
lack of snow having given me an excuse to give up this obligation.

這總是我的習慣,我的兩次研討班之間,休假一段時間,作為慣例的休息,順從習俗的方式,去從事冬天的運動。我很高興宣佈,今年將不會是這個情況,由於飄雪的欠缺,讓我有藉口放棄這個責任。

Chance so has it that, by virtue of this fact, I can also announce another event that I am happy to bring to the knowledge of a wider public. It so happens that just as I was
declining the opportunity of leaving my deposit with the travel agency, I was warmly thanked, for they had received a booking from eight members of the French Psycho-anal,tic Association.

偶然地,憑藉這個事實,我也能夠宣佈另外一個事件,我很樂意讓更多的大眾知道。恰巧的是,正當婉拒這個機會,將我的儲蓄聽由旅行社的安排,他們對我感謝不敏,因為他們收到法國精神分析協會八位會員的預約。

I must say that it gives me all the more pleasure to bring this event to your notice as it is what is called a truly good act, an action of the kind to which one may well apply the words of the Gospel, The left hand must not know what the right hand is doing.

我必須說,這給我更多的快樂,將這件事讓你們知道,因為這是所謂真正好的舉動,這種舉動很有理由比喻於福音書的文字:左手一定不知道,右手正在做什麼。

Eight of the most eminent members of the teaching section of the Association are now in London to discuss ways of warding off the effects of my teaching.

精神分析協會的教學部門,八位最傑出的成員現在在倫敦討論如何消除我的教學的影響。

This is a very praiseworthy concern and the said Association is willing to make any sacrifice for the well-being of its members, unless, perhaps, by reciprocity, the Association has defrayed the expenses of this journey, as it is our custom to defray the travelling expenses of its members they come and concern themselves very closely in the functioning of our Association.

這是非常值得讚賞的關懷,所說的這個協會,願意為了它的成員的幸福付出撥出經費,或許以互惠的方式,除非這個協會已經支付這次旅行的費用,如同我們的慣例支付它的成員的旅行費用,他們前來仔細觀摩我們協會的運作。

I thought I had to make this announcement so that the paeans of gratitude might hide the few signs of nervousness that have probably appeared in connection with this expedition.

我認為我必須做這個宣佈,為了讓我的歌功頌德,隱藏緊張的跡象。這些緊張的跡象的出現,跟這次的旅行有關。

I
Last time, I spoke to you about the concept of the unconscious, whose true function is precisely that of being in profound, initial, inaugural, relation with the function of the concept of the Unbegnf—or Begrzf of the original Un, namely, the cut.

上一次,我跟你們談論關於無意識的觀念。它的真實的功用確實是處於深刻,最初,開始的關係,跟這個原初的否定,也就是切割的觀念的功用。

I saw a profound link between this cut and the function as such of the subject, of the subject in its constituent relation to the signifier

我看到一個深刻的關聯,在這個切割與生命主體的功用本身,生命主體處於跟能指的形成關係。

It seems something of a new departure—and it is—that I should have referred to the subject when speaking of the unconscious.

這似乎是某件新的出發的事件—確實是—我本來應該提到生命主體,當談到無意識。

I thought I had succeeded in making you feel that all this happens in the same place, in the place of the subject, which—from the Cartesian experience reducing to a single
point the ground of inaugural certainty—has taken on an Archimedic value, if indeed that really was the point of application that made possible the quite different direction
that science has taken, namely, that initiated by Newton.

我認為我已經成功地讓你們感覺到,所有這一切發生在相同的地方,在生命主體的地方—從笛卡爾的經驗,化簡到單一的點,作為開始的確定性的基礎—這個生命主體的地方具有阿基米德的立足點的價值。假如那確實是應用的點,使科學採取的不同的方向成為可能,換句話說,牛頓開始的物理學立足點。

I have constantly stressed in my preceding statements the pulsative function, as it were, of the unconscious, the need to disappear that seems to be in some sense inherent in it—everything that, for a moment, appears in its slit seems to be destined,
by a sort of pre-emption, to close up again as Freud himself used this metaphor, to vanish, to disappear.

我曾經不斷地在我先前的陳述,強調無意識的這個「悸動」的功用,也就消失的必要性,在某種意義上,那是它的本質—每一樣東西,會在這個裂縫出現一陣子,然後似乎註定會再封閉,由於某種先前的約定。佛洛伊德使用這個比喻,會消失,會匿跡。

At the same time, I have formulated the hope that ‘through this may be renewed the trenchant, decisive crystallization that has already been produced in the physical sciences, but this time in a different direction that we shall call the conjectural science of the subject.

同時,我曾經說明這個希望,憑藉這種消失,將會重新開始有力的決定性的結晶體,在物理科學,這種結晶曾經被產生。但是這一次,是朝不同的方向,我們所謂的生命主體的推測的科學。

This is less paradoxical than might at first appear. When Freud realized that it was in the field of the dream that he had to find confirmation of what he had learnt from his experience of the hysteric, he began to move forward with truly
unprecedented boldness.

這不像乍然看起來那麼矛盾。當佛洛伊德體會到,就在夢的領域,他必須找到,從歇斯底里症的分析經驗,他的研究所得的印證。他開始前進,以史無前例地大無畏。

What does he now tell us about the unconscious? He declares that it is constituted essentially, not by what the consciousness may evoke, extend, locate, bring out of the subliminal, but by that which is, essentially, refused.

關於這個無意識,他現在告訴我們什麼?他宣佈,無意識的基本結構,不是根據意識的的召喚,延伸,找出,顯示崇高的東西,而是根據被意識拒絕的東西。

And what does Freud call this? He calls it by the same term by which Descartes designates what I just called his point of application—Gedanken, thoughts.

佛洛伊德稱呼這個叫什麼呢?他使用跟笛卡爾的相同的術語稱呼它,那就是「思想」。笛卡爾用「思想」指明我剛剛所說他的應用的觀點。

There are thoughts in this field of the beyond of consciousness, and it is impossible to represent these thoughts other than in the same homology of determination in which the subject of the I think finds himself in relation to the articulation of the I doubt.

在意識的另一邊的這個領域,還是有思想存在。我們不可能代表這些思想,除了就是用意識的異體同形的比喻。在意識界,作為「我思」的生命主體,發現他自己處於跟「我懷疑」的表達的關係。

Descartes apprehends his I think in the enunciation of the I doubt, not in its statement, which still bears all of this knowledge to be put in doubt.

笛卡爾理解他的「我思」,使用「我懷疑」的表達,而不是在它的陳述裏。這個陳述依舊具有他受到質疑的知識。

Shall I say that Freud makes one more step—which designates for us sufficiently the legitimacy of our association—when he invites us to integrate in the text of the
dream what I shall call the colophon of doubt—the colophon, in an old text, is that small pointing hand that used to be printed, in the days when we still had a typography, in the margin. The colophon of doubt is part of the text.

讓我這樣說,佛洛伊德向前跨一步—他充分地跟我們指明我們聯想到合理性—當他邀請我們在夢的文本,合併我所謂的「懷疑的標誌」—這個標誌,在古老的文本裏,被用指向的箭頭表示,在邊緣的地方,當我們依舊有印刷術的時代。懷疑的標誌是文本的部分。

This indicates that Freud places his certainty, his Gewissheit, only in the constellation of the signifiers as they result from the recounting, the commentary, the association, even if they are later retracted.

這指示著,佛洛伊德放置他的確定性,僅是在能指的彙集,當它們因為敍述,評論,聯想而形成,即使後來又會各自撤回。

Everything provides signifying material, which is what he depends on to establish his own Gewissheit—for I stress that experience begins only with his method. That is why I compare it to the Cartesian method.

每樣東西供應能指化材料。這是他依賴用以建立他自己的確定性—因為我強調,精神分析經驗從他的方法開始。那就是為什麼我將它比喻為笛卡爾的方法。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 306

August 20, 2011

Concept 306

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
提問與回答

X: Are not logical time and time-substance identical?

某先生:邏輯時間與時間材料相同嗎?

LACAN: Logical time is constituted by three stages. First, the moment of seeing—which is not without mystery, although correctly enough defined in the psychological experience of the intellectual operation that is called insight. Secondly, the stage of understanding. Thirdly, the moment to conclude. This is merely a
reminder.

拉康:邏輯時間由三個階段組成。首先,看見的時刻—這不無神秘,雖然在被稱為是視覺的知識運作的心理的經驗,被定義得十分正確。第二階段,瞭解的階段。第三階段,下結論的的時刻。這僅是作為提醒。

In order to understand logical time, one must set out with the presupposition that from the outset the signifying battery is given. On this basis, two terms are to be introduced, necessitated, as we shall see, by the function of repetition— Willkür, chance, and Zufall, the arbitrary.

為了瞭解邏輯時間,我們必須出現帶著預先假設:從一開始,能指的能量被給予。在基礎上,兩個術語被介紹,我們將會看出,由於重複的功用而有這個必要:偶然性與任意性。

In this way, Freud considers, with a view to the interpretation of dreams, the consequences of the chance of transcription, and the arbitrary nature of the links made—why link this with that, rather than with something else? Freud certainly
brings us here to the heart of the question posed by the modern development of the sciences, in so far as they demonstrate what we can ground on chance.

以這個方式,佛洛伊德考慮到,為了夢的解析,產生銘記的偶然性的結果,及形成銜接的任意性特性—為什麼將這個與那個銜接,而不是跟別的東西銜接?在此佛洛伊德確實帶領我們靠近,各門科學的現代發展提出的問題的核心,因為它們證明我們能夠將基礎定在偶然性上。

Nothing, in effect, can be grounded on chance—the calculation of chances, strategies—that does not involve at the outset a limited structuring of the situation, in terms of signiflers.

事實上,沒有一樣東西能夠將基礎定位在偶然性—各種機率的計算,各種策略—那並沒有牽涉到情境的有限結構,用能指的術語來說。

When modern games theory elaborates the strategy of the two partners, each meets the other with the maximum chances of winning on condition that each reasons in the same way as the other.

現代遊戲理論建構兩個同伴的策略,每一位面對另一位,用最大量的贏的機率。每一位元都用相同方式跟另一位元在作推理。

What is the value of an operation of this kind, if not that one’s bearings are already laid down, the signifying reference-points of the problem are already marked in it and
the solution will never go beyond them?

這種運作的價值是什麼?難道不就是我們的教養已經被奠定,對於問題的能指化的指稱點,已經被標示在上面,解答將永遠不能超越它們?

Well! As far as the unconscious is concerned, Freud reduces everything that comes within reach of his hearing to the function of pure signifiers. It is on the basis of this reduction that it operates, and that a moment to conclude may appear, says Freud—a moment when he feels he has the courage to judge and to conclude. This is part of what I have called his ethical witness.

呵呵!就無意識而言,佛洛伊德還原一切他聽力所及的東西,回到純淨能指的功用。根據它運作的這個還原的基礎,一個結論的時刻可能會出現,佛洛伊德說—當他覺得他有勇氣判斷與下結論的時刻。這就是我所謂的「倫理的見證人」。

Experience later shows that where the subject is concerned, he encounters limits, which are non-conviction, resistance, non-cure. Remembering always involves a limit. And, no doubt, it can be obtained more completely by other ways than analysis, but they are inoperant as far as cure is concerned.

精神分析經驗後來顯示,就生命主體而言,他遭遇到限制,這些限制是非信念,抗拒,及非治療。記憶總是牽涉到一種限制。無可置疑的,除了精神分析以外,記憶能夠根據其他方式更完整地獲得,但是就治療而言,它們是無法遠作的。

It is here that we must distinguish the scope of these two directions, remembering and repetition. From the one to the other, there is no more temporal orientation than there is reversibility. It is simply that they are not commutative —to begin by remembering in order to deal with the resistances of repetition is not the same thing as to begin by repetition in order to tackle remembering.

就在這裏,我們必須區別這兩個方向的範圍,記憶與重複。從前者到後者,沒有時間的定位,正如沒有倒轉。它們就是無法溝通—從記憶開始,為了要處理重複的抗拒,並不相等於是從重複開始,為了要克服記憶。

It is this that shows us that the time-function is of a logical order here, and bound up with a signifying shaping of the real.

這一點跟我們顯示,時間的功用是屬於邏輯的秩序,跟真實界的能指塑造息息相關。

Non-commutativity, in effect, is a category that belongs only to the register of the signifier.

事實上,方向無法轉換,是一種僅是屬於能指的銘記的範疇。

This enables us to grasp by what means the order of the unconscious appears. To what does Freud refer it? What is its surety? it is what he succeeds, in a second stage, in resolving by elaborating the function of repetition. We will see later how we can formulate it by referring to Aristotle’s Physics.

這使我們能夠理解,無意識的秩序使用什麼方法出現。佛洛伊德提到什麼?它的確定性是什麼?這就是在第二階段,他以建構重複的功用,成功地解決的東西。我們以後將會看出,我們如何能夠運用亞力斯多德的物理學說明它。

P. KAUFMANN: Last Year, you declared that anxiety is that which does not deceive. Can link this statement with ontology and certainty?

考夫曼:去年,你宣稱,焦慮是不會欺騙的東西。這個陳述能夠跟本體論與確定性銜接嗎?

LACAN: For analysis, anxiety is a crucial term of reference, because in effect anxiety is that which does not deceive. But anxiety may be lacking.

拉康:對於精神分析,焦慮是一種重要的術語指稱,因為事實上,焦慮不會欺騙。但是焦慮總是一種欠缺。

In experience, it is necessary to canalize it and, if I may say so, to take it in small doses, so that one is not overcome by it.

在精神分析經驗,焦慮必須給予疏浚。容我這樣說,少量地承受焦慮,我們才會被它壓倒。

This is a difficulty similar to that of bringing the subject into contact with the real—a term that I shall try to define next time in order to dissipate the ambiguity that still persists about it in the minds of many of my pupils.

這個困難類似將生命主體帶進跟真實界接觸—這個術語,我下一次嘗試定義,為了驅散依舊存在於許多我的學生心裏的這個曖昧模糊。

What, for the analyst, can confirm in the subject what occurs in the unconscious? In order to locate the truth—I have shown you this in studying the formations of the unconscious—Freud relies on a certain scansion. What justifies this trust is a reference to the real. But to say the least, the real does not come to him easily. Take the example of the Wolf Man.

對於精神分析師,在生命主體身上,有什麼能夠肯定無意識界所發生的事情?為了要定位真理—我曾經跟你們顯示,當我們在研究無意識的形成時—佛洛伊德依靠某種的掃描。給予這種信任的理由是它指向真實界。但是含蓄地說,這個真實界並沒有輕易就到他那裏。以狼人為例。

The exceptional importance of this case in Freud’s work is to show that it is in relation to the real that the level of phantasy functions. The real supports the phantasy, the phantasy protects the real. Next time, by way of elucidating this relation for you,

在佛洛伊德的研究,這個個案具有額外的重要性,顯示出:幻見運作的層次,與真實界有關。真實界支持這個幻見,幻見保護真實界。下一次,我會跟你們說明這層關係。

I shall take Spinoza’s cogitation, but I shall bring into play another term to replace the attribute.
29 January 1964

我將會探討史賓諾莎的「沉思錄」,然後我會運用另外一個術語,來代替這個屬性。
1964年 1月29日

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

精神分析四个基本观念 305

August 19, 2011

Concept 305

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

3
OF THE SUBJECT OF CERTAINTY
屬於確定性的生主體

Later, in the famous case of a female homosexual, he pokes fun at those who, on the subject of his patient’s dreams can say to him: But where is this unconscious that is supposed to bring us to the truth, to a divine truth? they ask sarcastically.

後來,在女性同性戀的著名例子,他開那些人的玩笑,論及他的病人夢的主體時,那些人能夠對他說:「但是應該帶給我們真理,神祗的真理的無意識在哪里?」他們嘲諷地問。

Your patient is just laughing at you, since, in analysis, she has dreams on purpose to convince you that she was returning to what was asked of her, a liking for men.
Freud sees no objection to this.

你們的病人僅就是嘲笑你們。因為在精神分析時,她故意作夢,為了說服你,她正回答對她要求的東性,對於男人的喜愛。佛洛伊德對此並沒有異議。

The unconscious, he tells us, is not the dream. What he means is that the unconscious may operate in the direction of deception, and that this does not in any way count as an objection for him. Indeed, how could there not be truth about lying—that truth which makes it perfectly possible, contrary to the supposed paradox, to declare, Jam lying?

無意識,他告訴我們,並不是夢。他的意思是,無意識可能運作,朝著欺騙的方向。對於他而言,這絲毫沒有構成反對的理由。的確,如何可能沒有關於謊言的真理呢?那個真理使它成為完全有這個可能,跟被認為的矛盾相反,那就是宣佈:「我正在說謊」?

It is simply that Freud, on this occasion, failed to formulate correctly what was the object both of the hysteric’s desire and of the female homosexual’s desire.

在這個場合,佛洛伊德僅是沒有正確地說明,歇斯底里症的欲望及女性同性念的欲望,兩者的客體是什麼。

This is why—in each case, in the case of Dora as well as in the famous case of the female homosexual—he allowed himself to be overwhelmed, and the treatment was broken off.

這就是為什麼—在每個個案,在朵拉的個案,以及在女性同性戀的著名個案—他容許他自己被壓倒,治療被中斷。

With regard to his interpretation, he is himself still hesitant—a little too early, a little too late. Freud could not yet see —for lack of those structural reference-points
that I hope to bring out for you—that the hysteric’s desire— which is legible in the most obvious way in the case—is to sustain the desire of the father—and, in the case of Dora, to sustain it by procuring.

關於他的解釋,他自己依舊很猶豫—有點太早,也有點太遲。佛洛伊德還無法看見—因為缺乏那些結構性的指稱點,我希望跟你們顯示的—歇斯底里症的欲望—在那個個案,顯而易見可以辨認—那就是要維持父親的欲望—在朵拉的個案,以獲得的方式來維持它。

Dora’s obvious complaisance in the father’s adventure with the woman who is the wife of Herr K., whose attentions to herself she accepts, is precisely the game by which she must sustain the man’s desire.

在父親跟荷凱先生的妻子有染的情事裏,朵拉顯而易見地殷勤。她接納荷凱先生對她的殷勤,確實是在玩弄遊戲,她才能維繫那個男人的欲望。

Furthermore, the passage a l’acte— breaking off the relationship by striking him, as soon as Herr K. says to her not, J am not interested in you, but, I am not interested in my wife—shows that it was necessary for her that the link should be preserved with that third element that enabled her to see the desire, which in any case was unsatisfied, subsisting—both the desire of the father whom she favoured qua impotent and her
own desire of being unable to realize herself qua desire of the Other.

而且,這個激情演出—她打他耳光,中斷這個關係,當荷凱先生對她說:「不,我對你並不感到興趣,但是我對我的妻子不感到興趣。」這顯示這對她是需要的,這個關係應該被保持,要有第三個元素使他能夠看到這個欲望存活。無論如何,這個欲望並沒有被滿足。她喜愛的父親的欲望,作為無能,以及她自己的欲望,不能夠實現她自己,作為大它者的欲望。

Similarly, and this once again justifies the formula I have given, the formula that originated in the experience of the hysteric, as a means of situating it at its correct level—man’s desire is the desire of the Other—it is in the desire of the father that the female homosexual finds another solution, that is, to defy the desire of the father.

同樣的,再一次,這證明我給予的公式是有道理的。起源於歇斯底里症的經驗的這個公式,作為一種工具,定位它在它的正確的層次—人的欲望就是對大它者的欲望—在父親的這個欲望,女性的同性戀找到另外一種解決,也就是,挑釁父親的欲望。

If you re-read the case, you will see the obviously provocative character of the whole behaviour of this girl who, dogging the footsteps of some demi-mondaine whom she had found in the town, constantly made show of the chivalrous attentions she paid the girl until one day, meeting her father—what she meets in the father’s gaze is unconcern, disregard, contempt for what is happening in front of him— she immediately throws herself over the railing of a local rail- way bridge.

假如你們重新閱讀這個個案,你們將會看出,這位女孩的整個行為,顯而易見具有挑釁的特性。她模仿她在鎮裏發現的一些花花公子的行為模式,不斷地對那位女子表現護花使者的姿態。直到有一天,跟她的父親會面—她在父親的眼神遇見的是冷漠,不在乎,及藐視在他面前發生的事—她立即將自己投身於當地火車橋段欄杆下。

Literally, she can no longer conceive, other than by destroying herself, of the function she had, that of showing the father how one is, oneself, an abstract, heroic, unique
phallus, devoted to the service of a lady.

實質上,她不再能夠構想她擁有的功用,除了毀滅她自己,給父親顯示,她是一個抽象的英雄式的獨特陽具,致力於替一位元女性服務。

What the female homosexual does in her dream, in deceiving Freud, is still an act of defiance in relation to the father’s desire :you want me to love men, you will have as many dreams about love of men as you wish. It is defiance in the form of derision.

女性同性戀在她的夢裏所做的,雖然欺瞞過佛洛伊德,依舊是一個挑釁的舉動,跟父親的欲望有關:「你要我愛男人,你希望擁有多少夢想,就有多少關於對男人的愛。這是以嘲笑的方式作為挑釁。

I have developed this introduction in such detail so that you may distinguish the exact position of the Freudian approach to the subject—in so far as it is the subject that is concerned in the field of the unconscious. In this way, I have distinguished the function of the subject of certainty from the search for the truth.

我曾經如此钜細無遺的發展這個介紹,所以你們會區別佛洛伊德探討生命主體的確實立場—在無意識的領域,息息相關的是生命主體。以這個方式,我曾經區別確定性的生命主體的功用,跟對於真理的追尋。

Next time, we shall approach the concept of repetition, by asking ourselves how it should be conceived. We shall see how by means of repetition, as repetition of deception, Freud coordinates experience, qua deceiving, with a real that will henceforth be situated in the field of science, situated as that which the subject is condemned to this mss, but even this miss is revelatory.

下一次,我們將探討重複的觀念。我們會詢問我們自己,它如何被構想。我們將看出,憑藉重複,作為欺騙的重複,佛洛伊德協調經驗,作為欺騙,帶有一個真實界,因此被定位在科學的領域,被定位作為生命主體被註定會有這個錯失,但是即使這個錯失,還是具有啟示性。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 304

August 19, 2011

Concept 304

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

3
OF THE SUBJECT OF CERTAINTY
屬於確定性的生主體

Yet the function he gives to doubt remains ambiguous, for this something that is to be preserved may also be the something that has to be shown —since, in any case, what is shown, shows itself only under a Verkleidung, a disguise and an ill-fitting one it often is.

可是,他給予懷疑的功用,始終是曖昧的。因為這個應該被保留的某件東西,也可能是必須被顯示的東西—因為,無論如何,所被顯示的,僅有在一種「偽裝」之下,才會顯現它自己。這個偽裝像尋常一樣,是一種拙劣的偽裝。

But, nevertheless, I must insist on the fact that there is a point at which the two approaches of Descartes and Freud come together, converge.

但是,我必須堅持這個事實:在某一點,笛卡爾與佛洛伊德的兩種方法,會彙集在一塊。

Descartes tells us—By virtue of the fact that I doubt, I am sure that I think, and—I would say, to stick to a formula that is no more prudent than his, but which will save us from getting caught up in the cogito, the I think—by virtue of thinking, I am.

笛卡爾告訴我們—憑藉這個事實:我懷疑,我確定我在思想—我不妨說,堅持一個跟他的公式同樣不嚴謹的公式,但是這個公式拯救我們,免于陷套於「我思故我在」。這個「我思」,憑藉思想,我才存在。

Note in passing that in avoiding the I think, I avoid the discussion that results from the fact that this I think, for us, certainly cannot be detached from the fact that he can formulate it only by saying it to us, implicitly—a fact that he forgets. I will return
to this later.

請順便注意一下。當我避免這個「我思」,我避免因為這個事實而造成的討論。對於我們而言,這個「我思」確實無法跟這個事實分開:僅有憑藉跟我們說,他能夠說明它。這暗示著一個事實:他會忘記。我等一下再來談這一點。

In a precisely similar way, Freud, when he doubts—for they are dreams, and it is he who, at the outset, doubts—is assured that a thought is there, which is unconscious, which means that it reveals itself as absent. As soon as he comes to deal with others, it is to this place that he summons the I think through which the subject will reveal himself

以確實相同的方式,佛洛伊德,當他懷疑—因為它們是夢,確實就是他,在一開始就懷疑—佛洛伊德確定,一個思想在那裏,那就是無意識。這意味著,無意識顯露它自己,作為欠缺。當他前來處理其他東西時,他召喚這個「我思」來到這個位置。通過這個「我思」,生命主體顯露它自己。

In short, he is sure that this thought is there alone with I am, if I may put it like this, provided, and this is the leap,someone thinks in his place.

總之,他確定這個思想單獨跟「我在」在那裏。容許我這樣表達,只要有某個人認為取代他的位置。這是跳躍的一步。

It is here that the dissymmetry between Freud and Descartes is revealed. It is not in the initial method of certainty grounded on the subject. It stems from the fact that the subject is ‘at home’ in this field of the unconscious. It is because Freud declares the
certainty of the unconscious that the progress by which he changed the world for us was made.

就在這裏,佛洛伊德與笛卡爾之間的不均稱,被顯露出來。這並不是在確定的最初的方法,作為生命主體的基礎。它起源於這個事實:生命主體「很自在」於無意識這個領域。因為佛洛伊德宣佈無意識的確定性,他替我們改變這個世界。這個進步可真大。

For Descartes, in the initial cogito —the Cartesians will grant me this point, but I will develop it in the discussion—what the I think is directed towards, in so far as it lurches into the I am, is a real. But the true remains so much outside that Descartes
then has to re-assure himself—of what, if not of an Other that is not deceptive, and which shall, into the bargain, guarantee by its very existence the bases of truth, guarantee him that there are in his own objective reason the necessary foundations for
the very real, about whose existence he has just re-assured himself, to find the dimension of truth.

對於笛卡爾,這個最初的「我思故我在」—請笛卡爾學派容許我說這一點,但是我將會在討論中發展它—這個「我思」被引導朝向的地方是一個真實界,因為它踉蹌進入「我在」。但是真實的東西始終保持在外面,以致於笛卡爾必須重新告訴他自己—這難道不是屬於一位絕不欺騙的「大它者」?除外,它將根據它自己的存在,保證真理的基礎,替他保證,在他自己的客觀的理有,會有必需要的基礎作為真實界。關於真實界的存在,他剛剛重新告訴他自己,為了找到真理的維度。

I can do no more than suggest the extraordinary consequences that have stemmed from this handing back of truth into the hands of the Other, in this instance the perfect God, whose truth is the nub of the matter, since, whatever he might have meant, would always be the truth—even if he had said that two and two make five, it would have been true.

我僅能夠建議這個特別的結果,起源於將真理放回大它者的手中。在這個例子,完美的上帝,他的真理是事情的核心。因為,不管他意味著什麼,那總是真理—即使他曾經說過:二加二等於五。那本來也會是真理。

What does this imply, if not that we will be able to begin playing with the small algebraic letters that transform geometry into analysis, that the door is open to set theory, that can permit ourselves everything as a hypothesis of truth?

這意味著什麼,難道不就是我們將能夠玩弄這些小小代數的字母,它們將幾何
轉變成為精神分析。這道門開放給集合理論,容許我們自己把每樣東西,都當作真理的假設?

But let us leave this—it is not our business, except in so far as we know that what begins at the level of the subject is never without consequence, on condition that we know what the term subject means.

但是讓我們離開這一點—這並不關我們的事,除了我們知道,在生命主體層次開始的東西,從來不是沒有結果,只要我們知道,生命主體這個術語意味著什麼。

Descartes did not know, except that it involved the subject of a certainty and the rejection of all previous knowledge—but we know, thanks to Freud, that the subject of the unconscious manifests itself; that it thinks before it attains certainty.

笛卡爾並不知道,除了它牽涉到一個確定性的生命主體,以及所有先前知識的拒絕—但是我們知道,由於佛洛伊德,這個無意識的生命主體顯現它自己,它先思想,才獲的確定性。

This is what we’re left with. It’s certainly our problem. But in any case, it is now a field to which we cannot refuse ourselves entry—at least as far as the question it poses is concerned.

這是我們目前處境擁有的東西。這確實是我們的問題。但是無論如何,現在它是一個我們無法拒絕我們自就進入的領域—至少,就它提出的這個問題而言。

3
I would now like to stress that the correlative of the subject is henceforth no longer the deceiving Other, but the deceived Other. And this is something that we are aware of in the most concrete way as soon as we enter the experience of analysis.

我現在想要強調,生命主體的相對立場,因此不再是欺騙的大它者,而是受到欺騙的大它者。這是某件我們知道的東西,以最具體的方式,當我們進入精神分析的經驗。

What the subject fears most is to mislead us (nous tromper), to put us on a wrong track, or more simply, that we will make a mistake (nous nous trompions), for, after all, it is obvious, just to look at us, that we are people who could make a mistake like
anybody else.

生命主體最感到害怕的,是誤導我們,將我們放置在錯誤的途徑上,或是更簡單地說,我們將會犯一個錯誤。因為,畢竟這是顯而易見的,請瞧瞧我們,我們跟任何一個人一樣,我們會犯錯誤。

Now, this does not bother Freud because—it is precisely this that one must understand, especially when one reads the first paragraph of the chapter on forgetting in dreams —the signs intersect, one must take everything into account, one must free oneself, he says, frei machen oneself of the whole scale of the evaluation that is sought there, Preisschdtzung, the evaluation of what is sure and what is not sure.

現在,這並沒有讓佛洛伊德懊惱,因為—我們必須瞭解的,確實是這個,特別是當我們閱讀這個章節的第一段,討論夢裏的遺忘—這些跡象會互相交會。我們考慮到這一切,我們必須解放我們自己。他說,我們必須解放自己,從那裏被尋求的評估的規模,確定或不確定的評估

The slightest indication that something is entering the field should make us regard it as of equal value as a trace in relation to the subject.

某件東西正在進入這個領域,即使是最輕微的指示,都應該讓我們將它視為具有同等的價值,作為跟生命主體有關的痕跡。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 303

August 19, 2011

Concept 303

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

3
OF THE SUBJECT OF CERTAINTY
屬於確定性的生主體

Of course, this led us to many other things in the field in which we were taken by this initial approach, by the discontinuity constituted by the fact that one man, a discoverer, Freud, said, There is the country where I shall take my people.

當然,這引導我們到這個領域的許多其他事情。在那裏,我們被這個最初的接近,被這個事實的形成的這個中斷帶領。有一個人,一位名叫佛洛伊德的發現者說:這就是我將帶領我的子民前往的國度。

For a long time, what was situated in this field appeared marked with the characteristics of its original discovery—the desire of the hysteric. But soon, as the discovery proceeded, something quite different made itself felt, something that was always formulated somewhat belatedly.

有漫長一段時間,在這個領域被定位的東西,出現標示著它的原初發現的特色—歇斯底里的欲望。但是不久,隨著這個發現繼續前進,某件截然不同的東西讓自己被感覺到,某件總是過時才被說明的東西。

This was because the theory had been forged only for the discoveries that preceded it. As a result, everything has to be revised, including the question of the desire of the hysteric. This imposes on us a sort of retroactive leap if we wish to mark here the essence of Freud’s position concerning that which occurs in the field of the
unconscious.

這是因為理論曾經被鑄造,僅是為了在它之前的這些發現。結果,每一樣東西必須被修正,包含歇斯底里的欲望的問題。這個賦加在我們身上一種反動的跳躍,假如我們希望在此標示佛洛伊德的立場的本質,關於發生在無意識相同的領域。

I am not being impressionistic when I say that Freud’s approach here is ethical—I am not thinking of the legendary courage of the scientist who recoils before nothing. This image, like all the others, requires some modification.

我並不是印象主義的方式,當我說佛洛伊德在此的方法是倫理學—我並不是想到這位大無畏的科學家的傳奇式的勇氣。這個意象,就像所有其他的意象,都要求某些修正。

If I am formulating here that the status of the unconscious is ethical, and not
ontic, it is precisely because Freud does not stress it when he gives the unconscious its status.

假如我在此說明,無意識的地位是倫理學,而不是本體論,那確實是因為佛洛伊德給予無意識它的地位時,並沒有強調它。

And what I have said about the thirst for truth that animated him is a mere indication of the approaches that will enable us to ask ourselves where Freud’s passion lay.

我所說的關於激起他對於真理的渴望,僅僅指示,這個方法將讓我們能夠詢問我們自己,佛洛伊德的激情在哪里。

Freud shows that he is very well aware how fragile are the veils of the unconscious where this register is concerned, when he opens the last chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams with the dream which, of all those that are analysed in the book, is in a category of its own—a dream suspended around the most anguishing mystery, that which links a father to the corpse of his son close by, of his dead son.

佛洛伊德顯示,他清楚知道,無意識的面紗撕何等的脆弱,就銘記而言。當他打開「夢的解釋」的最後一章,跟所有在書裏被分析的夢一樣,有一個夢屬於它自己的範疇。這一個夢被懸置在最令人痛苦的神秘四周,將一位父親跟附近他的兒子的屍體,他的死去的兒子連繫在一起。

As he is falling asleep, the father sees rise up before him the image of the son, who says to him, Father, can’t you see I’m burning? In fact, the son really is burning, in the next room.

當他沉睡時,父親看到兒子的意象出現。兒子對他說,「父親,你難道沒有看到我正在燃燒嗎?」事實上,兒子真的是在隔壁的房間燃燒。

What is the point, then, of sustaining the theory according to which the dream is the image of a desire with an example in which, in a sort of flamboyant reflection, it is precisely a reality which, incompletely transferred, seems here to be shaking the
dreamer from his sleep?

因此,維持這個理論的意義是什麼?依照這個理論,夢是欲望的意象。這這是例子,以一種誇大的反思,這確實是一個現實界,雖然不完整地被傳遞,在此似乎是搖醒作夢者?

Why, if not to suggest a mystery that is simply the world of the beyond, and some secret or other shared by the father and the son who says to him, Father, can’t you see I’m burning? What is he burning with, if not with that which we see emerging at other points designated by the Freudian topology, namely, the weight of the sins of the father, borne by the ghost in the myth of Hamlet, which Freud couples with the myth of Oedipus?

這難道不是建議一種神秘,這個神秘就是超越的世界,某種由父親分享的秘密,當兒子對他說:「父親,你難道看不見我正在燃燒嗎?」他正在被什麼燃燃,難道不就是我們看到,在其他時刻,佛洛伊德的拓撲圖形指明的,也就是父親的原罪的重量,在哈姆雷特的神話中,鬼魂所背負的。佛洛伊德將它跟伊底普斯的神話結合在一起。

The father, the Name-of-the-father, sustains the structure of desire with the structure of the law— but the inheritance of the father is that which Kierkegaard designates for us, namely, his sin.

父親,以父親之名,用法則的結構維持欲望的結構—但是父親的傳承,是齊克果跟我們指明的,也就是他的原罪。

Where does Hamlet’s ghost emerge from, if not from the place from which he denounces his brother for surprising him and cutting him off in the full flower of his sins? And far from providing Hamlet with the prohibitions of the Law that would
allow his desire to survive, this too ideal father is constantly being doubted.

哈姆雷特的鬼魂從哪里出現?難道不是從他抨擊他的弟弟,因為驚嚇他,並且在原罪盛放時隔離他的地方?這絲毫沒有供應哈姆雷特法則的禁令,容許他的欲望存活下來。這個過分理想的父親不斷地受到懷疑。

Everything is within reach, emerging, in this example that Freud places here in order to indicate in some way that he does not exploit it, that he appreciates it, that he weighs it, savours it. It is from this most fascinating point that he deflects our
attention, and embarks on a discussion concerning the forgetting of the dream, and the value of its transmission by the subject. This discussion centres entirely around a certain number of terms that need to be stressed.

每一樣東西都在範圍之內,出現在這個例子。佛洛伊德將它放置在這裏,為了以某種方式指示,他並沒有利用它,他欣賞它,他衡量它,他品味它。從這個最迷人的點,他轉向我們的注意,從事一種關於夢的遺忘的討論,以及生命主體傳遞它的價值。 這個討論完全集中在環繞某些的術語。這些術語需要被強調。

The major term, in fact, is not truth. It is Gewissheit, certainty. Freud’s method is Cartesian—in the sense that he sets out from the basis of the subject of certainty.

事實上,主要的術語並不是真理。這是確定的。佛洛伊德的方法是笛卡爾式的—他從確定性的生命主體出現。

The question is—of what can one be certain? With this aim, the first thing to be done is to overcome that which connotes anything to do with the content of the unconscious —especially when it is a question of extracting it from the experience of the dream—to overcome that which floats everywhere, that which marks, stains, spots,
the text of any dream communication—I am not sure, I doubt.

問題是—我們能夠確定什麼呢?使用這個目標,首先應該被做的是克服指明跟無意識的內涵有關的東西—特別是問題是要從夢的經驗將它抽離出來—並且克服飄浮每個地方的東西,標記,污染,形成斑點的東西,任何夢的溝通的文本—我並不確定,我懷疑。

And who would not have doubts about the transmission of the dream when, in effect, there is such an obvious gap between what was experienced and what is recounted?

有誰本來還懷疑夢的傳遞,當實際上,在被經驗到跟被描述中間,有一個明顯的差距。

Now—and it is here that Freud lays all his stress—doubt is the support of his certainty.

現在—就在這裏,佛洛伊德強調地說—懷疑支持他的確定性。

He goes on to explain why—this is precisely the sign, he says, that there is something to preserve. Doubt, then, is a sign – of resistance.

他繼續去解釋—這確實就是這個跡象,他說。有某件可保存的東西。因此,懷疑是抗拒的跡象。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 302

August 18, 2011

Concept 302

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

3
OF THE SUBJECT OF CERTAINTY
屬於確定性的生主體

What is ontic in the function of the unconscious is the split through which that something, whose adventure in our field seems so short, is for a moment brought into the light of day— a moment because the second stage, which is one of closing up,
gives this apprehension a vanishing aspect. I will come back to this —it may be even the step that I will be able to cross now, not having been able to so far, for reasons of context.

無意識的功用的本體就是分裂,通過這種分裂,某件東西在我們的領域的冒險如此之短暫,暫時被帶到光天化日來—只是暫時,因為這第二個階段,屬於封閉的階段,給予這種理解一個消失點。我將回頭談論這個—甚至可能就是這一步,我現在將可能跨越,因為我以前從來沒有能夠如此深入,因為內涵背景的理由。

The context is an urgent one, you know. Our technical habits have become—for reasons that will have to be analysed —so touchy about the functions of time, that in wishing to introduce distinctions so essential that they are emerging everywhere except in our discipline, it seemed that I was under an obligation to embark on a more or less defensive discussion.

你們知道,這是一種很迫切的內涵背景。我們的技術習慣已經變得—因為我們擁有能夠被分析的理由—如此敏感,關於時間的功用,以致於當我希望介紹它們到處出現的如此重要的區別,除了在我們精神分析的領域,我似乎有這個義務,從事相當辯護性的討論。

It is apparent that the very level of the definition of the unconscious— to refer only to what Freud says about it, in a necessarily approximate way, being able at first to use it only in hesitant touches here and there, when discussing the primary process—that what happens there is inaccessible to contradiction, to spatio-temporal location and also to the function of time.

顯而易見的,無意識的定義的層次—僅是提到佛洛伊德所說的定義,必然是用類比的方式。起初,我們僅能使用它,到處猶豫地觸及一下,當我們正在討論原初的過程—那裏發生的事情,矛盾得無法接近,無法接近空間與時間的位置,也無法接近時間的功用。

Now, although desire merely conveys what it maintains of an image of the past towards an ever short and limited future, Freud declares that it is nevertheless indestructible. Notice that in the term indestructible, it is precisely the most inconsistent reality of all that is affirmed.

現在,雖然欲望僅是傳達它的過去的意象所維持的東西,朝向永遠是簡短及有限的未來,佛洛伊德宣佈,它仍然是永不毀滅的。請注意的,「永不毀滅」這個術語,它確實是所有被肯定的東西中,最不一貫的現實界。

If indestructible desire escapes from time, to what register does it belong in the order of things? For what is a thing, if not that which endures, in an identical state, for a certain time? Is not this the place to distinguish in addition to duration, the substance of things, another mode of time —a logical time? You know that I have already touched on this theme in one of my essays.

假如永不毀滅的欲望從時間逃出,在事情的秩序上,它歸屬於怎樣的銘記?因為那難道不就是持久的東西,處於相同的狀態,經過某一段時間?這難道不是除了期限以外,要區別的地方?東西的性質,另外一種時間諜模式—一種邏輯的時間?你們知道,我已經在我的一篇論文,探討這個主題。

We find here once again the rhythmic structure of this pulsation of the slit whose function I referred to last time. The appearance/disappearance takes place between two points, the initial and the terminal of this logical time—between the instant of seeing, when something of the intuition itself is always elided, not to say lost, and that elusive moment when the apprehension of the unconscious is not, in fact, concluded,
when it is always a question of an ‘absorption’ fraught with false trails (tine leurrie).

在此我們再次發現裂縫的震盪的韻律結構,這個裂縫的功用,我上次提到過。出現與消失發生在兩個點之間,邏輯時間的最初與終結—在看見的瞬間,當某件直覺本身的東西總是被省略,估且不說是失落。那是省略的時刻,當對於無意識的理解事實上無疾而終,問題總是充滿虛假軌跡的一種「吸入」。

Ontically, then, the unconscious is the elusive—but we are beginning to circumscribe it in a structure, a temporal structure, which, it can be said, has never yet been articulated as such.

從本體論來看,無意識就是這個省略—但是我們漸漸開始將它限制在一個結構,一個時間段結構,據說,這個結構從來沒有依照本身的樣子被表達。
2
Since Freud himself, the development of the analytic experience has shown nothing but disdain for what appears in the gap. We have not—according to the comparison that Freud uses at a particular turning-point of The Interpretation of Dreams—fed
with blood the shades that have emerged from it.

自從佛洛伊德本人以降,精神分析經驗的發展僅是顯現藐視,對於這個差距出現的東西。對於從裏面出現的幽靈,我們並沒有供應血液—依照在「夢的解析」的一個特別的轉捩點,佛洛伊德使用的比喻。

We have concerned ourselves with other things, and I am here to show you this year in what way these displacements of interest have always been more in the direction of uncovering structures, which are badly described in analysis, and of which one speaks almost as a prophet.

我們自己關懷到其他事情。今年,我在此是要跟你們顯示,這些興趣的替代,總是更加朝向揭露結構的方向,這些結構在精神分析並沒有詳細地被描述。我們提到這些結構,幾乎是當作是一位預言家。

Too often, when reading the best theoretical work that analysts bring from their experience, one has the feeling that it has to be interpreted. I shall demonstrate
this for you in due course when dealing with something that is of the most vital importance in our experience, namely, the transference, from which we see co-existing the most fragmentary and the most illuminating evidence, in total
confusion.

往往,當我們閱讀即使是最佳的理論著作,精神分析師根據他們的經驗所寫的,我們會感覺到,它必須被解釋。我將在適當時機,跟你們證明這一點,當我正在處理某件在我們精神分析經驗,屬於最重要的東西。也就是移情。從那裏,我們看到最片段所啟明的證據,共同存在那裏,完全是混亂。

This explains why I can proceed only step by step, for others will speak to you of what I am dealing with here—the unconscious, repetition—at the level of the transference, and say that it is all a question of that. It is quite common, for example,
to hear it said that the transference is a form of repetition. I am not saying that this is untrue, or that there is not an element of repetition in the transference. I am not saying that it is not on the basis of his experience of the transference that Freud approached

這解釋為什麼我僅能夠逐步前進,因為人們將跟你們談到我正在這裏處理的東西—無意識,重複—在移情的層次,並且說,這一切都是它的問題。例如,我們相當普遍地聽到有人說:移情是重複的一種形式。我並不是說,這句話不真實,或是移情沒有一點重複的因素。我並不是在說,佛洛伊德探討的方法,沒有根據他對於移情的經驗,作為基礎。

What I am saying is that the concept of repetition has to do with the concept of the transference. Because of this confusion, I am obliged to go through this explanation at the outset, to lay down the necessary logical steps. For to follow chronology would be to encourage the ambiguities of the concept of repetition that derive from the fact that its discovery took place in the course of the first hesitant steps necessitated by the experience of the transference.

我正在說的是,重複的觀念必須跟移情的觀念有關係。因為這個混淆,我不得不從一開頭就經歷這番解釋,安排必須要的邏輯步驟。因為要遵照時間前後順序,等於是鼓勵重複的觀念的曖昧模糊,這種曖昧模糊導因於這個事實:重複的發現發生在第一個猶豫步驟的過程,這個步驟因為移情的經驗而有這個必要。

I would now like to make clear, astonishing as the formula may seem to you, that its status of being, which is so elusive, so unsubstantial, is given to the unconscious by the procedure of its discoverers

雖然這個公式對於你們是令人驚奇,我現在想要澄清,它的存在狀態,是如此的捉摸不定,是如此的虛無飄渺,這個它的發現者給予無意識的程式。

The status of the unconscious, which, as I have shown, is so fragile on the ontic plane. In his thirst for truth, Freud says, “ Whatever it is, I must go there, “because, somewhere, this unconscious reveals itself

無意識的地位,如我所顯示的,在本體論的層次是如此的脆弱。由於對於真理的渴望,佛洛伊德說:「不管它是什麼,我必須前往那裏。」因為在某個地方,這個無意顯示它自己。

And he says this on the basis of his experience of what was, up to that time, for the physician, the most rejected, the most concealed, the most contained, reality, that of the hysteric, in so far as it is —in a sense, from its origin—marked by the sign of deception.

他說這句話,是根據他直到當時作為醫生,他經驗到的最被排斥,最被隱藏,最被包容的現實界,歇斯底里症的現實界—從某個意義上,從它的起源—它就被標示著欺騙的記號。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 301

August 17, 2011

Concept 301

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

3
OF THE SUBJECT OF CERTAINTY
屬於確定性的生主體

Neither being, nor non-being 既非生命實存,也非不實存
Finitude of desire 欲望的結局
The elusive. 閃躲不定
The status of the unconscious is ethical . 無意識的地位是倫理立場
That all theory has to be revised. 所有理論必須受到修正
Freud, Cartesian 佛洛伊德與笛卡爾
The desire of the hysteric 歇斯底里症的欲望

Last week, my introduction of the unconscious through the structure of a gap provided an opportunity for one of my listeners, Jacques-Alain Miller, to give an excellent outline of what he recognized, in my previous writings, as the structuring function of a lack, and by an audacious arch he linked this up with what, speaking of the function of desire, I have designated as manque-a-ltre, a ‘want-to-be’.

上星期,我憑藉差距的結構,介紹無意識,提供一個機會給一位聽眾,雅克、艾倫密勒,將他在我先前的著作所體認的內容,作生動地描繪,作為架構一種「欠缺」的功用。通過這個大膽的舉動,他將它連接到當我提到欲望的功用時,我曾經指明的一種「想要成為」。

Having made this synopsis, which has certainly not been without its uses, at least for those who already had some idea of my teaching, he questioned me as to my ontology.

這種輪廓的描繪當然不無它的用途,至少對於那些對於我的教學有些觀念的人。
當他做完這個輪廓後,他詢問我關於我的本體論。

I was able to answer him only within the limits imposed on dialogue by the time-table, and I ought to have obtained from him to begin with a more specific definition of what he means by the term ontology.

我能夠回答他,在進度表容許對話的時間限制內。首先,我本來應該從他獲得一個更加明確的定義,關於他對於「本體論」這個術語的意義。

Nevertheless, I hope he did not think that I found the question at all inappropriate. I would go further. It came at a particularly good point, in that when speaking of this gap one is dealing with an ontological function, by which I thought I had to introduce, it being the most essential, the function of the unconscious.

可是,我希望他不要認為我發覺得這個問題有任何的不適當。我會更深入探討。這個問題問的時機恰恰好,因為當我談到這個差距,我是在處理一種本體論的功用。我認為我必須通過這個功用介紹無意識的功用,所以它非常重要。

I
The gap of the unconscious may be said to be pre-ontological. I have stressed that all too often forgotten characteristic— forgotten in a way that is not without significance—of the first emergence of the unconscious, namely, that it does not lend itself to ontology. Indeed, what became apparent at first to Freud, to the discoverers, to those who made the first steps, and what still becomes apparent to anyone in analysis who spends some time observing what truly belongs to the order to the unconscious, is that it is neither being, nor non-being, but the unrealized.

無意識的差距可以說是「在本體論之前」。我曾經強調那個往往被遺忘的特性—以並非不重要的方式被遺忘—這是無意識的第一次出現。換句話說,它對於本體論並沒有幫助。的確,對於佛洛伊德,對於發現者,對於那些首次採取這個步驟的人,首先成為顯見的,對於花費時間觀察屬於無意識層次的精神分析的任何人,依舊成為顯見得是,無意識既非生命實存,也非不實存,而是沒有被實現。

I mentioned the function of limbo. I might also have spoken of what, in the constructions of the Gnostics, are called the intermediary beings—sylphs, gnomes, and even higher forms of these ambiguous mediators.

我提到幽冥地區的功用。我本來可能也會談到,在諾斯教的理論建構裏,所謂的中間的生命存在物—諸如氣精、地精、這些曖魅的中間存在物,甚至還有更高的形態。

Furthermore, let us not forget that when Freud began to disturb this world, he gave voice to the line Flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo. It seemed heavy
with disturbing apprehensions when he pronounced it, but remarkably enough, its threat is completely forgotten after sixty years of experience.

而且,讓我們不要忘記,當佛洛伊德開始介入這個世界,他發出這一行的聲音「Flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo」。似乎充滿令人困擾的焦慮,當他宣佈它。但是足夠明顯的,經過六十年代精神分析經驗,它的威脅完全被忘記。

It is remarkable that what was thought to be an infernal opening should later have been so remarkably asepticized.

顯見的是,當時被認為是進入幽冥的機會,後來竟然如此明顯被輕描淡寫。

But it is also revealing that what seemed so evidently to be an opening on to a lower world, did not, with a few rare exceptions, form any serious alliance with that whole world— then so prevalent, and still so today, but to a lesser degree than in the period of Freudian discovery—of meta-psychical research, as one used to say, even of spiritist, invocatory, necromantic practice, as did the Gothic psychology of Myers, which strove to follow up the fact of telepathy.

這也是具有啟發性,似乎當時那麼明顯是一個進入幽冥世界的機會,除了少數罕見的例外,並沒有跟那整個世界,形成任何認真的聯繫—當時何其盛行,今天依舊是如此,但是程度上,比起佛洛伊德的發現的時期,淡化很多。關於這種「形上心理」的研究,我們過去時常說的,甚至有關精靈,召魂,巫術的做法,如同梅爾斯的鬼魂心理學。它們都嘗試追蹤心靈感應的事實。

Of course, in passing, Freud does touch on these facts, in so far as they were borne in upon him by experience. But it is clear that his theorization was moving towards a rationalist, elegant reduction. One may regard as exceptional, not to say aberrant, any concern in the analytic circle of today with what have been called—significantly enough, in order to sterilize them—the psi phenomena. I am referring to such research as that of Servadio, for example.

當然,偶爾地,佛洛伊德確實觸及到這些事實,因為它們跟精神分析經驗息息相關。但是顯而易見的是,他的理論化朝著理性主義前進,從事優雅的簡化。今天在精神分析圈內,若是有人關心所謂的「幽冥」現象,(使用委婉詞語,讓它顯得無害),他可能會被認為是例外,估且不說他是脫離正軌。我現在提到諸如其類的研究,例如瑟威帝奧的研究。

Certainly, it is not in this direction that our experience has led us. The result of our research into the unconscious moves, on the contrary, in the direction of a certain desiccation, a reduction to a herbarium, whose sampling is limited to a register that has become a catalogue raisonné, a classification that would certainly like to be thought a natural one.

的確,我們精神分析經驗並不是引導我們朝這個方向。相反地,我們研究無意識的結果朝向某種的將幽冥標本化的方向,還原到標本收集。它的樣本被限制在已經成為分類的目錄的銘記。它確實想要被認為那就是自然的樣本。

If, in the register of a traditional psychology, stress is laid on the uncontrollable,
infinite character of human desire —seeing in it the mark of some divine slipper that has left its imprint on it—what analytic experience enables us to declare is rather the
limited function of desire. Desire, more than any other point in the range of human possibility, meets its limit somewhere.

在傳統心理學的這個銘記,壓力被置在人類欲望無法控制的無限的特性—它在裏面看到某些神性靈媒的記號,留下它的印記在裏面—精神分析經驗讓我們能夠宣稱的是,就是欲望的有限的功用。欲望在某個地方遭遇它的限制,超過人類可能性的範圍的任何其他點。

We shall come back to all this, but I would point out that I said desire, not pleasure. Pleasure limits the scope of human possibility—the pleasure principle is a principle of homeostasis.

我們將回頭談論這個,但是我將指出,我說的是欲望,並不是歡樂。歡樂限制人類可能性的範圍—歡樂原則是體內平衡的原則。

Desire, on the other hand, finds its boundary, its strict relation, its limit, and it is in the relation to this limit that it is sustained as such, crossing the threshold imposed by the pleasure principle.

在另一方面,欲望找到它的邊界,它的嚴格的關係,它的限制。就在跟這個限制的關係,欲望的本身被維持,跨越過歡樂原則賦加的門檻。

This repudiation, into the field of religious sentimentality, of what he called the oceanic aspiration does not stem from a personal prejudice of Freud

這種否認,進入宗教的感傷性的領域,否認他所謂的對於汪洋的渴望,並不是起源于佛洛伊德個人的偏見。

Our experience is there to reduce this aspiration to a phantasy, to provide us with firm foundations elsewhere and to relegate it to the place occupied by what Freud called, on the subject of religion, illusion.

我們的精神分析經驗出現那裏,就是要將這種渴望還原為一種幻見,在別的地方,供應我們牢靠的基礎,將它放逐到佛洛伊德論宗教的生命主體時,所謂的幻覺盤踞的地區。

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

精神分析四个基本观念 205

August 17, 2011

Concept 205

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

2
THE FREUDIAN UNCONSCIOUS AND OURS
佛洛伊德的無意識與我們的無意識

Is the one anterior to discontinuity? I do not think so, and everything that I have taught in recent years has tended to exclude this need for a closed one—a mirage to which is attached the reference to the enveloping psyche, a sort of double of the organism in which this false unity is thought to reside.

這個整體性的背景早先存在於中斷嗎?我不這樣認為。最近幾年,我曾經教導的一切都傾向於排除這個封閉整體性背景的需要—這是一個緊連到涵蓋的心理指稱的幻覺,一種有機體的重複,這個虛假的一致性被認為駐居在那裏。

You will grant me that the one that is introduced by the experience of the unconscious is the one of the split, of the stroke, of rupture.

請容許我這樣說。無意識的精神分析經驗介紹的整體性背景,是這個分裂,這個打擊,這個斷裂的整體性背景。

At this point, there springs up a misunderstood form of the un, the Un of the Unbewussie. Let us say that the limit of the Unbewuss is the UnBegriff—not the non-concept, but the concept of lack.

在這個時候,突然出現一種被誤解的形式,「無意識」的這個「無」。容我們說,這個「無意識」的限制是「欠缺」—不是沒有觀念,而是「欠缺」的觀念。

Where is the background? Is it absent? No, Rupture, split, the stroke of the opening
makes absence emerge—just as the cry does not stand out against a ground of silence, but on the contrary makes the silence emerge as silence.

那背景在哪里?它是欠缺嗎?不,斷裂,分裂,洞口的打擊,使欠缺出現—正如喊叫並沒有以沉默的場地作為背景,而是相反的,它讓沉默出現作為沉默。

If you keep hold of this initial structure you will avoid giving yourself up to some partial aspect of the question of the unconscious—as, for example, that it is the subject, qua alienated in his history, at the level at which the syncope of discourse is joined with his desire.

假如你們掌握這個最初的結構,你們將會避免致力於無意識的這個問題的局部—譬如,生命主體,作為他的歷史中的疏離,論述的省略跟他的欲望結合在一起。

You will see that, more radically, it is in the dimension of a synchrony that you must
situate the unconscious—at the level of a being, but in the sense that it can spread over everything, that is to say, at the level of the subject of the enunciation, in so far as, according to the sentences, according to the modes, and in the sense that, in an interjection, in an Imperative, in an invocation, even in a hesitation it is always
the unconscious that presents you with its enigma , and speaks—in short, at the level at which everything at blossoms in the unconscious spreads, like myceium, as Freud says about dream, around a central point. It is always a question of the subject qua indeterminate.

你們將會看出,更加激進的,你們必須將無意識定位在這種同時性的向度—在一種存在的層次,但是意義上,它能擴散到一切。換句話說,在表達的生命主體的層次。依照這些句子,依照這些模式,以一種驚歎,以一種命令,以一種召喚,甚至作為一種猶豫,總是無意識呈現給你們一種謎團,然後言談—總之,在這個層次,在無意識盛開的一切,會像菌絲一般地擴散,如同佛洛伊德所說關於夢,環繞一個中心的要點。問題總是人作為生命主體,總是不確定。

Oblivium is levis with the long e—smooth. Oblivium is that which effaces—effaces what? The signifier as such. Here we find again the basic structure that makes it possible, in an operatory way, for something to take on the function of barring, striking out another thing.

「遺忘」一詞代有長的滑動尾音。「遺忘」就是抹除的東西,抹除什麼呢?抹除能指的本身。在此我們再次發現這個基本的結構,使它可能以運作的方式,使某件東西可能形成禁止的功用,打擊另外一件東西。

This is a more primordial level, structurally speaking, than repression, of which we shall speak later. Well, this operatory element of effacement is what Freud designates, from the outset, in the function of the censor.

從結構來說,這是一個比壓抑還更加原初的層次,我們以後會談到。呵呵,抹除的這個運作的因素,是佛洛伊德所指明,從一開始,談到檢查者的功用。

It is the censorship by scissors, the Russian censorship, or again the German censorship, see Heinrich Heine, at the beginning of the Book of Germany. Herr and Frau Such-and-such have pleasure in announcing the birth of a child as beautiful as liberty—and Dr Hoffmann, the censor, strikes out the word liberty

使用剪刀的這個檢查,蘇聯的檢查制度,或是德國的檢查制度,請參閱海瑞奇、海因,在德國之書的開始。某某先生擁有這個榮幸宣佈某位如此自由可愛的嬰孩的誕生—荷夫曼先生,這位檢查官將「自由」一詞刪掉。

Certainly one may ask oneself what effect this word can have as a result of this strictly material censorship, but that is another problem. But it is certainly here that the dynamism of the unconscious operates in the most efficient way.

確實地,我們可以詢問自己,由於這個嚴格的資料檢查制度,這個詞會產生怎樣的影響?但是這是另外一個問題。但是確實是在這裏,無意識的動力運作得最為有效。

Let us turn again to an example that has never been sufficiently exploited, the first used by Freud to demonstrate his theory, namely, his forgetting, his inability to remember the word Signorelli after his visit to the paintings at Orvieto. Is it
possible not to see emerging from the text itself; and establishing itself, not metaphor, but the reality of the disappearance, of the suppression, of the Unterdruckung, the passing underneath?

讓我們再次回到一個從來沒有被充分利用的例子。佛洛伊德使用的第一個例子,用來證明他的理論。換句話說,他的遺忘,他沒有能力記得「Signorelli」這個字詞,在他參觀在奧維投教堂的壁畫。這是可能的嗎?沒有從文本的本身看出出現,證明它自身,不是比喻的東西,而是消失,壓抑,及暗流通過的現實界?

The term Signor, Herr, passes underneath—the absolute master, I once said, which is in fact death, has disappeared there.

「Signor, Herr,」這個字詞從暗流通過—這個絕對的主人,我有一次說,事實上就是死亡。它已經在那裏消失。

Furthermore, do we not see, behind this, the emergence of that which forced Freud to find in the myths of the death of the father the regulation of his desire? After all, it is to be found in Nietzsche, who declares, in his own myth, that God is dead.

而且,我們難道沒有看出,在這個背後,在父親死亡的神話,佛洛伊德被迫發現他的欲望的被規範的這個東西的出現?畢竟,我們在尼采著作發現,他在他自己的神話宣告:上帝已死。

And it is perhaps against the background of the same reasons. For the myth of the God is dead—which, personally, I feel much less sure about, as a myth of course, than most contemporary intellectuals, which is in no sense a declaration of theism, nor
of faith in the resurrection—perhaps this myth is simply a shelter against the threat of castration.

或許它是以相同的理由作為背景。就上帝已死的神話而言,我個人覺得,我比較不像當代大部分的知識份子那麼確定,當作是當然的神話。這根本不是在做有神論的宣告,也不是耶穌復活的信仰的宣告—或許這個神話,僅是一種庇護所,對抗閹割的威脅。

If you know how to read them, you will see this threat in the apocalyptic frescos of Orvieto cathedral. If not, read Freud’s conversation in the train—where only the end of sexual potency is referred to. Freud’s interlocutor, a doctor—the same interlocutor in fact before whom he is unable to remember the name Signorelli—is describing to Freud the dramatic character that a loss of potency usually has for his patients.

假如你們知道如何閱讀它們,你們將會看出這個威脅,在奧維投教堂的啟示錄的壁畫。假如沒有看出,那麼閱讀佛洛伊德在火車上的談話—在那裏,僅有性的能力的目的被提到。佛洛伊德的對話者是一位元醫生,事實上是相同的對話者,在他面前,他一時想不起「Signorelli」這個畫家名字。他正在跟佛洛伊德描述性能力的喪失對於他的病人,產生這個戲劇性的特性。

Thus the unconscious is always manifested as that which vacillates in a split in the subject, from which emerges a discovery that Freud compares with desire—a desire that we will temporarily situate in the denuded metonymy of the discourse in question, where the subject surprises himself in some unexpected way.

因此,無意識總是被證明作為擺動於生命主體身上的分裂。從那裏,出現一種發現,佛洛伊德將它跟欲望比較—這一種欲望,我們暫時將它定位在受到置疑的論述的裸露換喻。在那裏,生命主體以意料之外的方式,驚嚇到他自己。

As far as Freud and his relation to the father are concerned, let us not forget that, despite all his efforts to understand, he was forced to admit, to a woman of his acquaintance, that, for him, the question—What does a woman want?—remained unanswered.

就佛洛伊德及其跟父親的關係而言,讓我們不要忘記:儘管他盡一切努力想瞭解,他不得不承認,對一位元他認識的女人,就他而言,這個問題—女人想要什麼?—始終無法被回答。

He never resolved this question, as we can see from what was in fact his relations with women, his uxorious character, as Jones rather delicately puts it. I would say that Freud would certainly have made a perfect impassioned idealist had he not devoted himself to the other, in the form of the hysteric.

他從來沒有解決這個問題,我們能夠看出,從事實上他跟女人的關係,他具有寵妻的個性,如同鐘斯微妙指明。我將會說,佛洛伊德本來會成為一位超越的理想主義者,假如他沒有致力於另外一位以歇斯底里症表現的理想主義者。

I have decided to stop my seminar always at a particular time, at twenty-to-two. As you see, I have not managed today to deal fully with the function of the unconscious.
(Questions and answers are missing.)
22 January 1964

我已經決定總是在某個特別的時間,在一點四十分,結束我的講演。你們看到,我今天對於無意識的功用,並沒有成功地完全闡明。

(問題與回答欠缺) 1964年 1月22日

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 204

August 17, 2011

Concept 204

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

2
THE FREUDIAN UNCONSCIOUS AND OURS
佛洛伊德的無意識與我們的無意識

3
Now, of course, at this stage in my life, I am in a position to introduce into the domain of cause the law of the signifier, in the locus in which this gap is produced.

現在,當然在我生命的這個階段,我的立場是要介紹能指點法則到原因的這個領域,在這個差距被產生的軌跡。

Nevertheless, we must, if we are to understand what it means in psycho-analysis, go
back and trace the concept of the unconscious through the various stages of the process in which Freud elaborated it —since we can complete that process only by carrying it to its limits.

可是,我們必須回頭追蹤無意識的觀念,假如我們想要瞭解在精神分析它是什麼意思,通過佛洛伊德建構它的好幾個階段的過程—因為我們僅有將那個過程實現到底,我們才能完成它。

The Freudian unconscious has nothing to do with the so called forms of the unconscious that preceded it, not to say accompanied it, and which still surround it today.

佛洛伊德的無意識跟在它之前所謂的無意識的形式,沒有絲毫關係,更不用說是伴隨它存在。可是,今天仍然環繞它的,還是這些無意識的形式。

To understand what I mean, open the Lalande dictionary. Or read the delightful list provided by Dwelshauvers in a book published some forty years ago. In it he lists ten or so forms of the unconscious that will tell nobody anything that he did not already
know, and which simply designate the non-conscious, the more or less conscious, etc.—in the ever-expanding field of psychology, one finds hundreds of additional varieties.

為了理解我的意思,請打開藍燈字典。或是閱讀德威肖維提供的令人愉悅的名單,那是大約四十年前出版的一本書。在裏面,他列舉十幾個無意識的形式,告訴我們他已經知道的無意識的形式,用相當意識的方式指明無意識,等等—在心理學越來越擴大的領域,我們發現數百個額外的變種。

Freud’s unconscious is not at all the romantic unconscious of imaginative creation. It is not the locus of the divinities of night. This locus is no doubt not entirely unrelated to the locus towards which Freud turns his gaze—but the fact that Jung, who provides a link with the terms of the romantic unconscious, should have been repudiated by Freud, is sufficient indication that psycho-analysis is introducing something other.

佛洛伊德的無意識根本就不是想像創造的浪漫的無意識。它並不是夜晚的神祗的軌跡。無可置疑的,這個軌跡跟佛洛伊德目光轉向的軌跡,並沒有完全不相關—但是榮格提供一個跟浪漫無意識的術語的關聯。這個事實本來會被佛洛伊德駁斥,因為它充分指明:精神分析介紹的是某件其他的東西。

Similarly, we can say that the hold-all, heteroclite unconscious that Edward von Hartmann spent his life elaborating is not Freud’s unconscious, but we should not be over-hasty, for Freud, in the seventh chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams, himself referred to it in a footnote—that is to say, we must look more closely at it if we are to discover in what way Freud’s unconscious is to be distinguished from it.

同樣地,我們能夠說,這個包容一切的畸形無意識,范、哈德門窮其一生之力建構的無意識,並不是佛洛伊德的無意識。但是我們不應該過於匆促下定論,因為對於佛洛伊德而言,在「夢的解析」度第七章節,他自己在注釋提到它—換句話說,我們必須更加仔細觀看它,假如我們想要發現,佛洛伊德的無意識是用什麼方式,能夠跟它區別出來。

To all these forms of unconscious, ever more or less linked to some obscure will regarded as primordial, to something preconscious, what Freud opposes is the revelation that at the level of the unconscious there is something at all points homologous with what occurs at the level of the subject—this thing speaks and functions in a way quite as elaborate as at the level of the conscious, which thus loses what seemed to be its privilege.

對於所有這些無意識的形式,它們跟被認為是原始的某些模糊的意志,有相當的關聯,跟某件前意識的東西。佛洛伊德用來跟它相提並論是是這個啟明:在無意識的層次,有某件東西指向相同於生命主體的層次發生的東西—這個東西言談並且發揮功用,跟意識層次的東西同樣複雜,它因此失去似乎是它特權的東西。

I am well aware of the resistances that this simple remark can still provoke, though it is evident in everything that Freud wrote. Read, for example, the paragraph of that seventh chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams, called ‘Forgetting in Dreams’, concerning which Freud merely refers to the play of the signifier.

我清楚知道這個簡單的談論依舊會引起這種抗拒,雖然在佛洛伊德寫的每一樣東西,都顯而易見。譬如,請閱讀「夢的解析」的第七章,標題是「夢中的遺忘」,關於它,佛洛伊德僅是提到能指的運作。

I will not content myself with this portentous reference. I have spelt out to you point by point the functioning of what was first produced for us by Freud as the phenomenon of the unconscious. In the dream, in parapraxis, in the flash of wit
—what is it that strikes one first? It is the sense of impediment to be found in all of them.

我將不會滿足於這種令人驚奇的指稱。我曾經跟你們逐點地解釋,佛洛伊德跟我們首次介紹的內容,作為無意識的現象。在夢裏,在動作失誤中,在靈光一閃中—首先讓人印象最深刻的是什麼?在那一切當中,那就是能夠被找到的受到阻礙的意義。

Impediment, failure, split. In a spoken or written sentence something stumbles. Freud is attracted by these phenomena, and it is there that he seeks the unconscious. There, something other demands to be realized—which appears as intentional, of course, but of a strange temporality. What occurs, what is produced, in this gap, is presented as the discooery. It is in this way that the Freudian exploration first encounters what occurs in the unconscious.

受到阻礙,失敗,分裂。在一個被講出或書寫的句子,某件東西結結巴巴。佛洛伊德被這些現象吸引,就在那裏,他尋找無意識。在那裏,某件其他的東西被實現—出現作為意圖性的東西,當然,而是具有一種奇怪的暫時性。所發生的事情,所被產生的東西,在這個差距,被呈現作為發現物。以這種方式,佛洛伊德的探險首先遭遇到無意識裏的東西。

This discovery is, at the same time, a solution—no necessarily a complete one, but, however incomplete it may be, it has that indefinable something that touches us, that peculiar accent that Theodor Reik has brought out so admirably—only brought out, for Freud certainly noted it before him—namely, surprise, that by which the subject feels himself overcome, by which he finds both more and less than he expected—but, in any case, it is, in relation to what he expected, of exceptional value.

這個發現同時也是一種解決—未必是一個完整的解決。但是無論如何不完整,它具有那種無以定義的某件東西感動著我們,希奧德、瑞克令人崇敬地展現的那種奇異的特色—他僅是展現,因為佛洛伊德確實在他之前注意到它—換句話說,驚奇。生命主體感覺自己被這種驚奇攝住,他發現比他預期的更多,同時也更少。但是無論如何,就他的期望而言,它具有額外的價值。

Now, as soon as it is presented, this discovery becomes a rediscovery and, furthermore, it is always ready to steal away again, thus establishing the dimension of loss

現在,當它一被呈現,這個發現變成一種重新發現,而且,它總是準備再次溜走,因此形成損失的維度。

To resort to a metaphor, drawn from mythology, we have, in Eurydice twice lost, the most potent image we can find of the relation between Orpheus the analyst and the unconscious.

我們必須訴諸於比喻,從神話得來的比喻。尤利底斯的兩次迷失,是我們能夠找到的最有力的意象,關於奧費斯作為分析師與無意識之間的關係。

In this respect, if you will allow me to add a touch of irony, the unconscious finds itself, strictly speaking, on the opposite side to love, which, as everyone knows, is always unique; the expression ‘one lost, ten to be found again’ finds its best application here.

在這一方面,假如你們容許我增添一點反諷的氣息,無意識發現它自己,嚴格地說,處於愛的另一面。眾所周知,愛總是很奇特,「迷失於愛一次,能夠重新找回十次」,應用在這裏,最好不過。

Discontinuity, then, is the essential form in which the unconscious first appears to us as a phenomenon—discontinuity, in which something is manifested as a vacillation.

中斷因此是無意識首次出現在我們身上的基本的形式,作為一種現象—中斷,某件東西被展現作為一種搖擺。

Now, if this discontinuity has this absolute, inaugural character, in the development of Freud’s discovery, must we place it—as was later the tendency with analysts—against the background of a totality?

現在,假如這種中斷擁有絕對的開始的特性,在佛洛伊德的發現的發展,我們必須將它放置在一種整體性的背景嗎?這是精神分析後來的傾向。

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