Concept 14d

Concept 14d

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学四个基本概念

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份客体及其流通

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
问与答

J . -A. Miller： The question concerns the relation between the drive and the real, and the differences between the object of the drive, that of phantasj and that of desire.

米勒：这个问题牵涉到驱力与实在界的关系。以及驱力的客体与幻见的客体，与欲望的客体之间的差异。

LACAN: The object of the drive is to be situated at the level of what I have metaphorically called a headless subjectification, a subjectification without subject, a bone, a structure, an outline, which represents one side of the topology. The other side is that which is responsible for the fact that a subject, through his relations with the signifier, is a subject-with-holes (sujet troué).

拉康：驱力的客体应该被定位在我曾经用比喻所谓的「无头的主体化」，一个没有主体、骨头、结构及轮廓的主体化。它代表了拓扑图形的一面。另一面要负责这个事实：主体通过跟能指的关系，是一个空洞的主体。

These holes came from somewhere. In his first constructions, his first networks of signifying crossroads to become stabilized, Freud was reaching towards something that, in the subject, is intended to maintain to the greatest possible degree what I have called homeostasis.

这些空洞来自某个地方。弗洛伊德在他的最初的建构，他最初的能指化的十字路的网络，为了要成为稳定下来，他朝向获取某个东西，在主体身上，被用来尽可能维持我所谓的「体内平衡」。

This does not simply mean the crossing of a certain threshold of excitement, but also a distribution of ways. Freud even uses metaphors that assign a diameter to these ways, which permit the maintenance, the ever equal dispersal, of a certain investment.

这不仅意味着某些興奋门槛的跨越，而且是一种途径的分布。弗洛伊德甚至使用各种比喻，给这些途径画出一条直径。这些比喻容许维持某些的投注，永远的相等的扩散。

Somewhere Freud says quite categorically that it is the pressure of what, in sexuality, has to be repressed in order to maintain the pleasure principle—namely, the libido—that has
made possible the progress of the mental apparatus itself, as such and, for example, the establishment in the mental apparatus of that possibility of investment that we call Aufmerksamkeit, the possibility of attention. The determination of the functioning of the Real-Ich, which both satisfies the pleasure principle and, at the same time, is invested without defence by the upsurge of sexuality—this is what is responsible for its structure.

弗洛伊德在某个地方相当明白地说：在性方面，为了维持快乐原则，所必需被压抑的东西，换句话说，力比多，曾经让精神的工具本体自身的进展成为可能。譬如，我们所谓专注的可能的投注的可能性，这个精神工具的建立。这个真实自我的功用的决心，既满足快乐原则，同时，又毫无防卫地被性的泉涌投注—这就是它的结构会形成这样的原因。

At this level, we are not even forced to take into account any subjectification of the subject. The subject is an apparatus.

在这个层次，我们甚至被迫考虑到主体的任何主体化。这个主体是工具。

This apparatus is something lacunary, and it is in the lacuna that the subject establishes the function of a certain object, qua lost object. It is the status of the objet a in so far as it is present in the drive.

这个工具是某件缺口的东西。就在这个缺口，主体建立某种客体的功用，作为失落的客体。它出现在驱力里，作为小客体的地位。

In the phantasy, the subject is frequently unperceived, but he is always there, whether in the dream or in any of the more or less developed forms of day-dreaming. The subject situates
himself as determined by the phantasy.

在幻见里，主体时常没有被感觉到，但是他总是在那里，无论在梦里，或在任何白日梦成形的形态里。主体定位他自己，作为由幻见决定。

The phantasy is the support of desire; it is not the object that is the support of desire. The subject sustains himself as desiring in relation to an ever more complex ensemble. This
is apparent enough in the form of the scenario it assumes, in which the subject, more or less recognizable, is somewhere, split, divided, generally double, in his relation to the object, which usually does not show its true face either.

幻见是欲望的支持。欲望的支持并不是这个客体。主体支持自己，作为更复杂的聚合的关系的欲望。以它所扮演的剧本的形式，在足够算是工具了。在这个剧本里，主体模糊不清地在某个地方分裂，分离，变成双重，对应于它跟这个客体的关系。这个客体通常也不知道它的真正的脸孔。

Next time, I shall come back to what I have called the structure of perversion. Strictly speaking, it is an inverted effect of the phantasy. It is the subject who determines himself as object, in
his encounter with the division of subjectivity.

下一次，我将回头谈我所谓的倒错的结构。严格来说，这是幻见到颠倒的影响。主体决定他自己，作为客体，在他跟主体性的区隔的遭遇。

I will show you—I must stop here today because of the time, I am very sorry to say—that the subject assuming this role of the object is precisely what sustains the reality of the situation of what is called the sado-masochistic drive, and which is only a single point, in the masochistic situation itself. It is in so far as the subject makes himself the object of another will that the sado-masochistic drive not only closes up, but constitutes itself.

我将跟你们显示—今天因为时间关系，我必须停在这里。我很抱歉地说—扮演这个客体角色的主体，维持所谓的虐待及受虐待驱力的情况的现实界。在受虐狂的情境里，这仅是一个单一点。当主体让他自己成为另外一个意志的客体，虐待狂及受虐狂不仅封闭，而且形成它自己。

It is only in a second stage, as Freud shows us in this text, that the sadistic desire is possible in relation to a phantasy. The sadistic desire exists in a crowd of configurations, and also in
the neuroses, but it is not yet sadism in the strict sense.

只有在第二个阶段，如弗洛伊德在这个文本里跟我们显示，虐待狂的欲望跟幻见的关系，才有可能。虐待狂的欲望存在于一群的聚合里，而且也在神经症里，但是严格来说，这还不算是虐待狂。

I will ask you to look at my article Kant avec Sade, where you will see that the sadist himself occupies the place of the object, but without knowing it, to the benefit of another, for whose jouissance he exercises his action as sadistic pervert.

我将会要求你们观看我的文章「康德对萨德」。你们将会看出，虐待狂患者本人佔据这个客体的位置，但是自己并不知道。结果对于另外一个主体有利益，因为他运用他的行动，作为虐待狂的倒错者，就是为了这个主体的欢爽。

You see, then, several possibilities here for the funnction of the objet a, which is never found in the position of being the aim of desire. It is either pre-subjective, or the foundation of an
identification of the subject, or the foundation of an identification disavowed by the subject. In this sense, sadism is merely the disavowal of masochism. This formula will make it possible to illuminate many things concerning the true nature of sadism.

在此，你们因此看出好几个可能性，作为这个小客体的功用。这个小客体永远无法在成为欲望的目标的这个位置被找到。它要就是处于前主体性，要不然就是作为主体的认同的基础，要不然就是不被主体承认的认同的基础。以这个意义来说，虐待狂仅仅是受虐狂的不被承认。这个公式让我们可能启明许多事情，关于虐待狂的特性。

But the object of desire, in the usual sense, is either a phantasy that is in reality the support of desire, or a lure. On this subject of the lure, which poses at the same time all the previous questions that you put forward just now concerning the relation of the subject to the real, the analysis that Freud gives of love enables us to make some progress.

但是欲望的客体，就通常意义来说，要就是在现实界支持欲望的幻见，要不就是一个陷阱。对于这个陷阱的这个主体，它同时提出所有你们刚才提出的先前的问题，关于主体与实在界的关系。弗洛伊德给予爱的这个分析，使我们能够获得一些进展。

The need Freud feels to refer to the relation of the Ich to the real in order to introduce the dialectic of love—whereas, strictly speaking, the neutral real is the desexualized real—is
not introduced at the level of the drive. It is there that is to be found what, for us, will prove most valuable concerning how we should conceive of the function of love—namely, its fundamentally narcissistic structure.

弗洛伊德感觉有这个需要提到这个「我」跟实在界的关系，为了介绍爱的辩证法—另一方面，严格来说，中立的实在界是除掉性化的实在界—它并没有在驱力的层次被介绍。就在那里，我们能够找到最有价值的东西，关于我们应该如何构想爱的功用—换句话说，爱具有它基本上的自恋的结构。

There can be absolutely no doubt that there is a real. That the subject has a constructive relation with this real only within the narrow confines of the pleasure principle, of the pleasure principle unforced by the drive, this is—as we shall see next time—the point of emergence of the love object. The whole question is to discover how this love object may come to fulfill a role analogous with the object of desire—upon what equivocations
does the possibility for the love object of becoming an object of desire rest?

有一个实在界，这是绝对无可置疑的。只有在快乐原则的这个狭窄的范围里，主体跟这个实在界，有一个建设性的关系。快乐原则由这个驱力自然形成—我们下一次将会看出—这就是爱的客体的出现点。整个的问题是要发现，这个爱的客体如何可能扮演一个类似欲望的客体的角色—爱的客体成为欲望的客体的可能性，要依靠怎样的暧昧？

Have I thrown some light on your question?

我已经让你的问题获得明白回答不？

J.-A. MILLER: Some light and some shadow.

米勒： 某些明白，某些模糊。
13 May 1964

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

Concept 14c

Concept 14c
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学四个基本概念

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份客体及其流通

3
Let us now follow Freud when he talks to us about Schaulust, seeing, being seen. Is it the same thing? How can it even be sustained that it can be that, except by inscribing it in terms of signifiers? Or is there, then, some other mystery? There is a quite different one, and, in order to introduce you to it, I have only to point out that Schaulust is manifested in perversion. I stress that the drive is not perversion. What constitutes the enigmatic character of Freud’s presentation derives precisely from the fact that he wishes to give us a radical structure—in which the subject is not yet placed. On the contrary, what
defines perversion is precisely the way in which the subject is placed in it.

佛洛伊德跟我们谈过观看及被观看，让我接下去谈。观看与被观看是同一件事吗。？这个观点怎么可能自圆其说，除非是用意符的差异？或者，还有其它的奥妙？有一个相当不同的奥妙，容我在此介绍一下。我所要指出的是，观看常以倒错的方式展现。可是，我强调一点：驱力不是倒错。
佛洛伊德呈现这个观点，有些晦涩难解之处，主要是在于他希望给予一个激进的结构，在主体尚位找到定位以前。相反的，倒错的定义，恰恰就是主体的位置所在。

雄伯曰
欲望驱力跟倒错都牵涉到翻转，因此看起有点类似。但是拉康强调，驱力并不是倒错。因为倒错预先假设有主体存在。而欲望驱力则需经由向外观看，使自己被观看，再翻转回来观看自己时，始能发现欲望驱力是什么？

We must read Freud’s text very attentively here. The value of Freud’s texts on this matter, in which he is breaking new ground, is that like a good archaeologist, he leaves the work of the dig in place—so that, even if it is incomplete, we are able to discover what the excavated objects mean. When Mr
Fenichel passes by the same ground, he does as one used to do, he gathers everything up, puts it in his pockets and in glass cases, without any kind of order, or at least in a completely arbitrary order, so that nothing can be found again.

我们必须非常仔细地阅读佛洛伊德的本文。佛洛伊德对于这个观点的本文的价值，发前人所未见。就像是一位优秀考古学家的本文，他将他挖掘的遗迹留在那里，虽然未竟全功，我们还能够继续去发现，已经被挖掘出来的东西是什么？。当精神分析师菲尼差，经过相同的遗址时，跟一般人以前的做法一样，他将所有的东西收拢起来，放进他的口袋跟玻璃柜，没有整理，至少没有分门别类地整理。所以，在那里，再没有什么可发现了。

What occurs in voyeurism? At the moment of the act of the voyeur, where is the subject, where is the object? I have told you that the subject is not there in the sense of seeing, at the level of the scopic drive. He is there as pervert and he is situated only at the culmination of the loop. As for the object—this is
what my topology on the blackboard cannot show you, but can allow you to admit—the loop turns around itself; it is a missile, and it is with it, in perversion, that the target is reached.

窥视狂发生什么事？在窥视动作的那个时刻，主体在哪理？客体在哪里？我曾告诉过你们，从观看的意义，在视觉驱力的层次，主体并不在那里。主体在那里是作为一为倒错者，他的位置是在圈套位置的最上方。至于客体，我画在黑板上的图形没有显示，但是你们还是能够看得出来：客体就在圈套的倒转处。那客体就像是一颗飞弹，在倒错中，目标被飞弹击中。

雄伯曰
窥视狂是倒错行为？还是驱力？拉康强调从视觉驱力来看，主体并不在那儿。我们以为的主体，其实仅是倒错者。至于客体，驱力的迴圈环绕客体，旋转后翻转回实在界的无意识，而倒错者则以为他获得符号界的客体，就是获得实在界的无意识。

The object, here, is the gaze—the gaze that is the subject, which attains it, which hits the bull’s eye in target-shooting. I have only to remind you what I said of Sartre’s analysis. Although this analysis brings out the agency of the gaze, it is not at the level of the other whose gaze surprises the subject looking
through the keyhole. It is that the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze.

在此的客体，就是凝视。主体以凝视充当飞弹，在瞄准时，击中靶心目标。我只需要提醒你们，我曾谈过对于沙特小说的分析。虽然这篇分析揭露凝视的功能，可是透过钥匙孔正在偷窥的主体，所受到的惊吓，我当时并没有提到是大他者的凝视。

雄伯曰
在沙特的存在主义的小说「呕吐」Nausea，主角，时时感觉自己被处于被凝视当中。观看者发现自己被观看，但是沙特跟拉康的视觉驱力不同的解释是，这种观看主体，成为被观看的客体，并没有翻转回实在界的无意识。

You grasp here the ambiguity of what is at issue when we speak of the scopic drive. The gaze is this object lost and suddenly refound in the conflagration of shame, by the introduction of the other. Up to that point, what is the subject trying to see? What he is trying to see, make no mistake, is the object as
absence. What the voyeur is looking for and finds is merely a shadow, a shadow behind the curtain. There he will phantasize any magic of presence, the most graceful of girls, for example, even if on the other side there is only a hairy athlete. What he is looking for is not, as one says, the phallus—but precisely its absence, hence the pre-eminence of certain forms as objects of his search.

当我们提到视觉的驱力，你了解到争议的问题有些模糊。凝视是这个迷失的客体，然后在羞愧交加的灾难中，由于它者的介入，重新被找回。直到现在，主体到底设法要观看什么？无可置疑地，他一直设法观看的，就是客体做为一种欠缺。窥视狂找到的，只是一个阴影，一个窗帘背后的阴影。例如，他会将任何存在现场的东西，驰骋幻想为风华绝代的惊艳美人，但实际上，在门后的另一边，那只是一位头发蓬松的运动员。他所正在寻找的，不是阳具，如一般人所说，而道地道地是阳具的欠缺，因此某些的东西就会突显出来，作为他寻求的客体。

雄伯曰
在此，拉康釐清视觉驱力的的凝视与窥视狂的差别。视觉驱力是「凝视这个迷失的客体，然后在羞愧交加的灾难中，由于大他者的介入，重新被找回。」明显的特征是「迷失的客体被找回」，「羞愧交加」，及「他者的介入」。而窥视狂则是「只是一个阴影，一个窗帘背后的阴影。例如，他会将任何存在现场的东西，驰骋幻想为风华绝代的惊艳美人，但实际上，在门后的另一边，那只是一位头发蓬松的运动员。他所正在寻找的，不是阳具，如一般人所说，而道地道地是阳具的欠缺，因此某些的东西就会突显出来，作为他寻求的客体。」

What one looks at is what cannot be seen. If, thanks to tic’ introduction of the other, the structure of the drive appears, it is really completed only in its reversed form, in its return form, which is the true active drive. In exhibitionism what is intended by the subject is what is realized in the other. The true aim of desire is the other, as constrained, beyond his involvement in the scene. It is not only the victim who is concerned in exhibitionism, it is the victim as referred to some other who is looking at him.

我们所观看的东西，其实是无法看得见的东西。借着它者这个术语的介绍，驱力的结构展现出来。驱力只有在其倒转的形式，在其回转的形式，才算功德圆满，才算是真正的主动的驱力。在暴露狂的展示中，主体所企图的目标，要在他者那里，才能够被实现。欲望的真正目的是他者，是主体身不由己地介入于现场之外的他者。在暴露狂的展示，关系到的不仅仅是受害者，而且是某个正在观看他的它者的受害者。

雄伯曰：
拉康进一步釐清视觉驱力与暴露狂的差异。视觉驱力除了观看及被观看外，要翻转回实在界的无意识。而暴露狂则是仅有观看及被观看，并没有翻转回到无意识的他者，因此仅是某个正在观看他的它者的受害者。

Thus in this text, we have the key, the nodus, of what has been so much an obstacle to the understanding of masochism. Freud articulated in the most categorical way that at the outset of the sado-masochistic drive, pain has nothing to do with it. It is a question of a Herrschaft, of Bewdltigung, violence done to what?—to something that is so unspeakable that Freud arrives at the conclusion, and at the same time recoils from it, that its first model, in accordance with everything I have told you, is
to be found in a violence that the subject commits, with a view to mastery, upon himself.

因此，在这个本文，我们找到关键，一直以来阻碍我们了解受虐狂的关键点。佛洛伊德条分缕析地表达，刚开始时，虐待狂与受虐狂的驱力，跟痛苦没有丝毫没有关系，而是跟对于某个东西施加的暴力有关。这个东西无法言喻，佛洛伊德在结论时，已经抵达，而又退缩。这个东西，我一直在告诉你们。 我们能够找它的第一个模式，在主体为了控制自己，对于自己所从事的暴力。

雄伯说
在此，拉康给于虐待狂及受虐狂一个明确的定义：主体为了控制自己，对于自己所从事的暴力。这个暴力跟痛苦丝毫没有关系。

He recoils from it. And with good reason. The ascetic who flagellates himself does it for a third party. Now, this is not what he is trying to convey. He wishes only to designate the return, the insertion on one’s own body, of the departure and the end of the drive.

弗洛伊德退缩，而且理由充份。苦行修行者鞭打自己，不是表演给第三者看的。现在，他所要表达的不是表演。他只希望表示，驱力的出发跟目的，会回转过来，插入他自己的身体

雄伯说：
拉康认为弗洛伊德已经发现这一点，却没有再深入。以苦行修行者为例，他鞭打自己，不是表演给第三者看的，而是要掌控自己，让驱力的出发与目的，会回转过来，插入他自己的身体。

At what moment, says Freud, do we see the possibility of pain introduced into the sado-masochistic drive?—the possibility of pain undergone by him who has become, at that moment, the subject of the drive. It is, he tells us, at the moment when the loop is closed, when it is from one pole to the other that there has been a reversal, when the other has come into play, when the subject has taken himself as the end, the terminus of the drive.

佛洛伊德问道，在什么时刻，我们才有可能看到，痛苦被介绍到虐待狂与受虐狂的驱力呢？就在他成为驱力的主体的那个时刻，他才可能经历到痛苦。佛洛伊德告诉我们，就在圈套封闭的时刻，就在从一端到另一端，他者开始运作，而发生倒转的时刻。在那个时刻，主体已经将自己当着是目标，驱力的终点。

雄伯说
虐待狂与受虐狂若仅是为了掌控自己的一种驱力的观看，被观看，及回转无意识，则无关乎痛苦。会经历到痛苦，是在驱力迴圈的圈套，在符号界被封闭时，也就是拉康所谓的「缝合」suture或「锚定点」anchoring point，将符号界的小他者，误识为就是实在界的无意识大他者，而形成一种病征。

At this moment, pain comes into play in so far as the subject experiences it from the other. He will become, will be able to become, in his theoretical deduction, a sadistic subject, in so far as the completed loop of the drive will have brought into play the action of the other. What is at issue in the drive is finally revealed here—the course of the drive is the only form of transgression that is permitted to the subject in relation to the pleasure principle.

在这时刻，痛苦开始运作，因为主体从它者那里经验到痛苦。在他这个戏剧性的演变中，他将成为，也将能够成为一位虐待狂的主体，因为驱力的完整的回旋，使它者的行动开使运作。驱力饱受争议的地方终于在此显现出来：相较于快乐原理，驱力的途径是主体唯一被允许的逾越的形式。

雄伯说
驱力的迴圈是主动观看，被观看，再翻转回实在界的无意识。若是在符号界被缝合，则会成为虐待狂及受虐狂的主体。

The subject will realize that his desire is merely a vain detour with the aim of catching the jouissance of the other—in so far as the other intervenes, he will realize that there is a jouissance beyond the pleasure principle.

主体将会体会到，为了要获得它者的欢跃，他的欲望仅仅是一个徒劳无功的迂回。当它者介入的时刻，他将体会到，欢跃存在于快乐原理之外。

雄伯说
虐待狂及受虐狂的主体，主要是要掌控自己，获得「欢爽」，却发现「欢爽」远在「快乐原则」的小客体之外。

The forcing of the pleasure principle by the effect of the partial drive—it is by this that we may conceive that the partial, ambiguous drives are installed at the limit of an Erhaltungstrieb, of the maintenance of a homeostasis, of its capture by the veiled face that is that of sexuality.

快乐原理受到部份驱力的影响所逼迫。从这里，我们可以构想，这个暧昧的部份驱力，被安置在维持体内平衡的最高点，它被戴面纱的脸孔，也就是性作为脸孔的凝视所捕捉。

It is in so far as the drive is evidence of the forcing of the pleasure principle that it provides us with evidence that beyond the Real-Ich, another reality intervenes, and we shall see by what return it is this other reality, in the last resort, that has given to this Real-Ich its structure and diversification.

因为驱力证明是快乐原理的逼迫，它也证明，在真实的自我之外，还有另外一个真实界介入。我们将会看到，这个它者的真实界，在最后，会以怎样的翻转，使原有的真实的自我，享有更丰富充实的生命光辉。

雄伯说
刚开始时，我一直被这个the other 困惑，搞不清楚the other是大他者？还是小他者？若是小他者，那跟小客体，有什么差别。译到这里，才开始有点明白。就实在界的无意识的大他者而言，这里的the other，指的是符号界的小他者，也就是小客体，但却被主体误认为就是实在界的大他者，而被缝合suture或锚定anchoring，而成为病征。

「快乐原则」pleasure principle及「真实自我」Real-Ich 都是弗洛伊德的术语，拉康则是在符号界the symbolic 之外，另外开辟一个「实在界」the real及「想象界」，来解释「快乐原则」及「真实自我」，不能仅是在符号界寻找，而要到实在界的无意识探本寻源。

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

雄伯通俗化拉康 142b

雄伯通俗化拉康 142b
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学四个基本概念

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份的客体及其流通
2
Freud now introduces us to the drive by one of the most traditional ways, using at every moment the resources of the language, and not hesitating to base himself on something that belongs only to certain linguistic systems., the three voices, active, passive and reflexive. But this is merely an envelope. We must see that this signifying reversion is something other, something other than what it dresses in. What is fundamental at the level of each drive is the movement outwards and back in which it is structured.

弗洛伊德现在以传统的方式，为我们介绍驱力。他不时使用语言的资源，毫不迟疑地，他将基础建立于只属于某些语言系统的东西上，如主动、被动、反身及物、三个语态。但这只是外表包装。我们必须看出，能指的翻转是某件其它不同于它所包装的东西。驱力层次最基本的东西，是它由自己的结构，向外冲撞，而又回来的动作。

雄伯注：
弗洛伊德对于驱力，用三种语态来解释。网络有较明确的解释；
Lacan maintains Freud’s distinction between drive (Trieb) and instinct (Instinkt). Drives differ from biological needs because they can never be satisfied and do not aim at an object but rather circle perpetually around it. The true source of jouissance is the repetition of the movement of this closed circuit. Lacan posits the drives as both cultural and symbolic constructs—to him, “the drive is not a given, something archaic, primordial.” He incorporates the four elements of the drives as defined by Freud (the pressure, the end, the object and the source) to his theory of the drive’s circuit: the drive originates in the erogenous zone, circles round the object, and returns to the erogenous zone. The three grammatical voices structure this circuit:
拉康主张，弗洛伊德区别驱力与本能的差异。驱力不同于生物上的需要，因为它们永远无法被满足，并且目标并不是朝向客体，代替的，驱力永远地环绕客体旋转。欢爽的真实的来源，就是这个封闭迴圈的动作的重复。拉康提出这个驱力，作为既是文化，又是符号的建构—对于拉康，「驱力并不是一个理所当然的假定，某件过时，原始的东西。」他将弗洛伊德定义的驱力的四个元素（ 压力、目标、客体及来源），合并到他的驱力迴圈的的理论：驱力起源于性的敏感地带，环绕客体旋转，然后再回到性的敏感地带。有三个文法的语态，作为这个迴圈的结构。
1. the active voice (to see) 主动语态（ 看见）
2. the reflexive voice (to see oneself) 反身语态 （看见自己）
3. the passive voice (to be seen) 被动语态 （让自己被看见）
The active and reflexive voices are autoerotic—they lack a subject. It is only when the drive completes its circuit with the passive voice that a new subject appears. Despite being the “passive” voice, the drive is essentially active: “to make oneself be seen” rather than “to be seen.” The circuit of the drive is the only way for the subject to transgress the pleasure principle.

主动及反身语态都是自动性欲—它们欠缺一个主体。仅有当驱力以被动语态完成它的迴圈，新的主体才会出现。仅管驱力成为「被动语态」，它基本上还是主动语态：「让自己被看见」，而不是「被看见」。驱力的迴圈是最好的方法，让主体逾越快乐原则。

Lacan identifies four partial drives: the oral drive (the erogenous zones are the lips, the partial object the breast), the anal drive (the anus and the feces), the scopic drive (the eyes and the gaze) and the invocatory drive (the ears and the voice). The first two relate to demand and the last two to desire. If the drives are closely related to desire, they are the partial aspects in which desire is realized—desire is one and undivided, whereas the drives are its partial manifestations
拉康辨认出四个部分驱力：口腔驱力（性感地带是嘴唇，部分客体是乳房），肛门驱力（ 肛门及粪便），视觉驱力（眼睛及凝视），以及召唤驱力（ 耳朵及声音）。前面两样跟要求有关，后两者跟欲望有关。假如这些驱力跟欲望息息相关，它们是欲望被满足时的两个部分。—欲望是一个整体，而且无法分裂；而驱力则是部分的展现。
***********

It is remarkable that Freud can designate these two poles simply by using something that is the verb. Beschauen und beschaut werden, to see and to be seen, qualen and gequalt werden, to torment and to be tormented. This is because, from the outset, Freud takes it as understood that no part of this distance
covered can be separated from its outwards-and-back movement, from its fundamental reversion, from the circular character of the path of the drive.

耐人寻味的是，佛洛伊德仅仅使用动词的主被动，如看见与被看见，折磨与被折磨，来指明这两个极端。这是因为从一开始，佛洛伊德认为他所研究发现的东西，大家都已经心知肚明，不外乎是：向外冲撞而又回来的动作，驱力的根本的翻转，以及驱力的途径具有循环的特性。

Similarly, it is remarkable that, in order to illustrate the dimension of this Verkehrung, he should choose Schaulust, the pleasure of seeing, and what he cannot designate other than by the combination of two terms in sado-masochism. When he speaks of these two drives, and especially of masochism, he is careful to observe that there are not two stages in these drives, but three. One must distinguish the return into the circuit of the drive of that which appears—but also does not appear—in a third stage. Namely, the appearance of em neues Subjekt, to be understood as follows—not in the sense that there is already one, namely the subject of the drive, but in that what is new is the appearance of a subject. This subject, which is properly the other, appears in so far as the drive has been able to show its
circular course. It is only with its appearance at the level of the other that what there is of the function of the drive may be realized.

同样耐人寻味的是，为了解释这个来回的疏离，他竟然选择窥视的快乐一词，以及不得不使用虐待狂与受虐狂两个术语来说明。当他提到这两个驱力，特别是受虐狂，他仔细地观察到，这两个驱力并不是两个阶段，而是三个阶段。我们必须区别驱力的循环回来时，若有若失的东西隐隐若现，那就是第三阶段。换言之，这个第三阶段的出现，可以被理解如下：不是驱力的主体事先存在，新奇的妙事是，主体现在才出现。这个主体，不妨说是大他者的主体，出现在驱力能够展现它循环的过程时。只有随着这个大他者的出现，驱力的功用才可能被实现。

雄伯曰：
驱力既然具有主动与被动的特性，用虐待狂与受虐狂来说明，倒也清楚。问题是怎么变成三个阶段呢？拉康强调，并不是原先就有一个主体，（如果原先就有，主体就会很清楚。）而是由于驱力的主动向外观看，到令自己被看，再回头观看自己，才蓦然发现，作为大他者的主体就在自己的欲望那里。就像大乘佛教谓人人有佛性，可是大家往往不自觉，只有经由自己向外寻求，被寻求，然后回归自己欲望本身时，才蓦然发现自己就是佛，自己就有大悲心。

It is to this that I would now like to draw your attention. You see here, on the blackboard, a circuit formed by the curve of this rising and redescending arrow that crosses, Drang as it is in its origin, the surface constituted by what I defined last time as the rim, which is regarded in the theory as the source, the Quelle, that is to say, the so-called erogenous zone in the drive. The tension is always loop-shaped and cannot be separated from its return to the erogenous zone.

我现在要提醒你们注意的就是这个。你们在此看到，在黑板上，有一条上升及重新下降的箭头的曲线，形成一道循环。这条起源于欲望的曲线，越过我上次定义为边缘所组成的表面。这个边缘在精神分析理论，被认为是来源所在。换言之，就是所谓驱力的性感地带。这个敏感的地带是个回旋的形状，无法跟它的的回转地带区隔开来。

雄伯：
这个驱力的迴旋形状图，书本上有。可是我画不出来，也无法贴上影象档，不晓的Fullmetal 能不能帮忙找一下贴上来。否则光靠文字叙述，大家看得懂否？

Here we can clear up the mystery of the zielgelzemmt, of that form that the drive may assume, in attaining its satisfaction without attaining its aim—in so far as it would be defined by a biological function, by the realization of reproductive coupling. For the partial drive does not lie there. What is it?

在此，我们能够弄清楚，驱力所形成的状态的神秘，就在于不必到达目标，就得到它的满足，因为它被定义为一种生物的功能，实现繁殖交配的功用。可是，部份的驱力并不是在那里。那部份的驱力是什么？

雄伯曰：
驱力所形成的状态，是一种神秘，而且不必到达目标，就得到它的满足，但是这是繁殖交配功用的生物的本能。跟性作为部分驱力的功用不一样。

Let us still suspend the answer, but let us concentrate on this term but, and on the two meanings it may present. In order to differentiate them, I have chosen to notate them here in a language in which they are particularly expressive, English. When you entrust someone with a mission, the aim is not what
he brings back, but the itinerary he must take. The aim is the way taken. The French word but may be translated by another word in English, goal. In archery, the goal is not the but either, it is not the bird you shoot, it is having scored a hit and thereby attained your but.

让我们暂时不回答这个问题。我们先专注于这个术语，专注于它可能呈现的两个意义。为了要区别它们，我选择用特别能使它们表现生动的语言，我用英文来描绘它们的回转。当你们信任某个人可以从事某个任务，他所带回的，不是这个任务的目标，而是他所从事的途径。「目标」就是所从事的途径。法文的「但是」在英文可以用另一个字翻译为「目的」。在拉弓射箭时，目的也不是这个「但是」。目的不是你要射中的鸟，而是你已经达成目的，因此你获得你的「但是」。

雄伯：
「当你们信任某个人可以从事某个任务，他所带回的，不是这个任务的目标，而是他所从事的途径。「目标」就是所从事的途径。」这句话有点费解，仔细想一想，我们的生活中有没有这种情景？有了，我记得以前看过一个影片，几位聪明绝顶的人才，筹划盗取机关重重的银行地下金库。盗取出来后，运上轮船，铸成轮船的锚，放入海中，躲过警探追查。逃离途中，黄金却因为暴风雨而掉落大海，等于是功亏一篑。电影的重点不在强调黄金的目标获得与否，而在于强调盗取过分的智慧算计，及行动的天衣无缝，所带给观众的紧张刺激。

If the drive may be satisfied without attaining what, from the point of view of a biological totalization of function, would be the satisfaction of its end of reproduction, it is because it is a partial drive, and its aim is simply this return into circuit. This theory is present in Freud. He tells us somewhere that
the ideal model for auto-eroticism would be a single mouth kissing itself—a brilliant, even dazzling metaphor, in this respect so typical of everything he writes, and which requires only to be completed by a question. In the drive, is not this mouth what might be called a mouth in the form of an arrow?—a
mouth sewn up, in which, in analysis, we see indicating as clearly as possible, in certain silences, the pure agency of the oral drive, closing upon its own satisfaction.

假如驱力的得到满足，不必从生物的整体的功用而言，经由它的繁殖交配的目的来得到，那是因为部份的驱力的存在，而它的目的仅仅就是回转到它的循环。这个理论，佛洛伊德已经提出。他在某个地方曾告诉我们：性冲动的自动机能，理想的模式将是一张嘴巴的自吻。这个比喻生猛鲜活，形容佛洛伊德的著作等身，再贴切不过。还有待回答的只剩一个问题。在驱力的循环，嘴巴难道不就是箭头形状的那个开口处的嘴巴？那个被缝合的嘴巴？在精神分析经验，我们很清楚看到，在某些沉默的时刻，口腔的驱力欲语还休，一经满足就封闭。

雄伯曰：
「性冲动的自动机能，理想的模式将是一张嘴巴的自吻。」这个比喻确实是生猛鲜活。拉康用来形容弗洛伊德的丰功伟业，我们亦心有戚戚焉，也真想用来聊慰自己平凡的一生。不过，拉康提醒我们：在某些沉默的时刻，口腔的驱力欲语还休，一经满足就封闭。

In any case, what makes us distinguish this satisfaction from the mere auto-eroticism of the erogenous zone is the object that we confuse all too often with that upon which the drive closes —this object, which is in fact simply the presence of a hollow, a void, which can be occupied, Freud tells us, by any object, and whose agency we know only in the form of the lost object, the petit a. The objet petit a is not the origin of the oral drive. It is not introduced as the original food, it is introduced from the fact that no food will ever satisfy the oral drive, except by circumventing the eternally lacking object.

无论如何，区别这个满足，跟性感地带的性冲动的自动机能的满足，有何不同的地方，就是我们时常将驱力的封闭，混淆成为它的客体。事实上，这个客体仅仅是一个空洞的存在，一个无法被任何客体占据的空无，佛洛伊德如此告诉我们，我们只是知道，这个客体的代理是失落的客体，小客体。这个小客体不是口腔驱力的起源。它不是被介绍作为原初的食物。它之所以被介绍，是因为食物永远满足不了口腔的驱力，食物只是权充对于这个永远失落的客体的代理。

雄伯：
拉康提醒我们：食物永远满足不了口腔的驱力，食物只是权充对于这个永远失落的客体的代理。那怎么办呢？我的一些迷恋于食物小客体的朋友，经常这样问？全市的精致餐厅，都已经被他们光顾遍了。

The question now confronting us is this—where is this circuit plugged in and, to begin with, is it spiral in form, that is to say, is the circuit of the oral drive continued by the anal drive, which would then be the following stage? Is it a case of dialectical progress being produced out of opposition? Even for
people who are used to us, it is already to carry the question rather far, in the name of some kind of mystery of development, to regard the thing as already acquired, inscribed in the organism.

我们现在面临的问题是：这个循环的衔接点在哪理？循环起初是回旋形状吗？换言之，口腔驱力的循环，会以下一阶段的肛门驱力继续吗？这是个阴阳两性所产生的辩证历程吗？你若是将这个问题，当着是你已经在自身的有机体生命获得验证，获得解答，你未免过于自信。即使你对于精神分析经验甚为熟稔，你要知道，天机奥秘，知之不祥。

雄伯曰：
四种驱力彼此之间或许会关联，但是欲望的驱力问题，不可能仅在「自身的有机体生命获得验证，获得解答」。而是要从实在界的无意识的源头去寻找。

This conception seems to be sustained by the fact that as far as the emergence of sexuality in a so-called completed form is concerned, we are certainly dealing with an organic process. But there is no reason to extend this fact to the relation between the other partial drives. There is no relation of production between one of the partial drives and the next.

这个观念似乎由下面这个事实得到左证：就性总要达到高潮才会爽快而言，我们确实是在处理有机体的生命过程。但是，我们仍然没有理由，将这个事实，扩大到其它部份驱力之间的关系。某一部份驱力产生的结果，未必跟下一个部份驱力产生的结果，有任何关系。

The passage from the oral drive to the anal drive can be produced not by a process of maturation, but by the intervention of something that does not belong to the field of the drive—by the intervention, the overthrow, of the demand of the Other. If we introduce the other drives with which the series may be formed, and the number of which is fairly short, it is quite clear that you would find it very difficult indeed to situate in relation to the drives that I have just named, in a historical succession, the Schaulust, or scopic drive, or even what I will later distinguish as the invocatory drive (la pulsion invocante),
and to establish between them the slightest relation of deduction or genesis.

从口腔驱力到肛门驱力的历程，不一定要经过长大成年的过程，而是要经过驱力以外的某件东西的介入，换言之，经过大它者所要求的介入跟翻转。即使我介绍过其它数目不多的驱力，例如，我刚刚提到的视觉驱力 或我后来又揭露的召唤驱力，因为它们跟这一系列的形成有关，显而易见，你们将会发现，要从它们衍生的过程，找到彼此关系的位置，或在彼此之间，建立演变或起源的丝毫关系，确实都不是一件很容易的事情。

雄伯曰
拉康强调：从口腔驱力到肛门驱力的历程，不一定要经过长大成年的过程，而是要经过驱力以外的某件东西的介入，换言之，经过大它者所要求的介入跟翻转。实在界的无意识是介入驱力的主要因素，也是我们念兹在兹的东西。

There is no natural metamorphosis of the oral drive into the anal drive. Whatever appearances may emerge to the contrary from the play of the symbol constituted, in other contexts, by the supposed anal object, namely, the faeces, in relation to the phallus in its negative effect, we can in no sense— experience shows us — consider that there is a continuity between the anal phase and the phallic phase, that there is a relation of natural metamorphosis.

从口腔驱力到肛门躯力的蜕变，并不是很自然的过程。就组成的符号的运作而言，出现的表象符号，在其它的情境，可能会是完全相反的表象符号。例如，口腔驱力的食物，蜕变成为所谓肛门驱力的客体，换言之，粪便，或阳具驱力的附作用，尿尿。精神分析经验告诉我们，我们完全没有办法认为，肛门的部份驱力，跟阳具的部份驱力，有任何的连续性，或彼此的蜕变有任何关系。

We must consider the drive under the heading of the kon- stante Kcraft that sustains it as a stationary tension. Let us take a look at the metaphors that Freud gives us to express these outlets. Take Schub, for example, which he immediately translates by the image that it bears in his mind, that of a spindle of
lava, a material emission from the deflagration of energy that has occurred there in various successive stages, which complete, one after another, that form of return journey. Do we not see in the Freudian metaphor the embodiment of this fundamental structure—something that emerges from a rim, which redoubles its enclosed structure, following a course that returns, and of which nothing else ensures the consistency except the object, as something that must be circumvented.

我们考虑驱力，不妨先给它一个大标题：「蓄势待发」，意思是，驱力被维持作为一种蠢蠢欲动的紧张力量。让我们先看一下，佛洛伊德为了表达这些发泄，所给予的比喻。以精液为例，他立即以脑海浮现的岩浆的爆发的意象，将它翻译成为一种能源的逬发，所产生出来的物资。这个物质以各种连续的阶段发生在那里，然后陆续地，绕一圈回转到原来的地方。从佛洛伊德的这个比喻，我们难道不是看到驱力这个基本结构的具体形象？从边缘出现的某件东西，以封闭的形状重迭增加，遵循回转的途径前进。除了这个客体作为某件必须被包围的东西，没有其它一样东西可以保证它的持续性，。

雄伯曰：
欲望驱力的一个特征是边缘，封闭，与回转：从边缘出现的某件东西，以封闭的形状重迭增加，遵循回转的途径前进。 客体并不是它的目标，而是被环绕的东西。

This articulation leads us to make of the manifestation of the drive the mode of a headless subject, for everything is articulated in it in terms of tension, and has no relation to the subject other than one of topological community. I have been able to articulate the unconscious for you as being situated in
the gaps that the distribution of the signifying investments sets up in the subject, and which figure in the algorithm in the form of a losange [], which I place at the centre of any relation of the unconscious between reality and the subject. Well! It is in so far as something in the apparatus of the body is structured in the same way, it is because of the topological unity of the gaps in play, that the drive assumes its role in the functioning of the unconscious.

佛洛伊德的表述引导我们将驱力的展现，解释为无头主体的乱闯，因为驱力的每一样东西，都是用紧张力量的术语来表述，而且这些东西，必需是主体处于拓扑图形的社会之内，才会发生关联。我之所以能够表述无意识，因为它的位置，就在意符的投注散布在主体身上形成的裂口，形状像是邮戳的四角方块。我将这个裂口，放置在无意识处于现实界与主体之间的关系中心。驱力扮演它在无意识的功用的角色，如同身体装置的某件零件的功用，因为这个裂口的运作，在社会环境里有其脉络可循。

雄伯曰
拉康将欲望驱力解释为一种向往冲撞，然后回转。他运用「无头主体」headless subject的意象。这个欲望驱力的无头主体acephalic subject 跟主体没有关系，除了作为拓扑图形的社会一份子。因为驱力仅牵涉到主体的某一面或某一边。将「欲望驱力的主体」当著是实际的一个主体，并不是很恰当。拉康说，在这个层次，我们并不需要去考虑到主体的主体化。我们正在考虑的是一个非主体化的主体。它的特征主要是欠缺，某件东西失落，头不见了。拉康在此提到这个主体为一个欠缺的工具。这个东西形成一个空洞，或是让东西出现作为欠缺。「工具」这个术语意味着主体的这一边，欲望驱力的这一边，最好被构想成为客体。主体在此失落自己，成为仅是一个小客体。

「」这个邮戳般的四角方块，是拉康用来作驱力的辩证法，无意识处于感觉的主体与被妥协的现实界之间的关系。左边尖端代表被划杠的主体，通过欲望驱力，从逆时钟方向，到底下尖端的无意识，到右边尖端的小客体，再逆时钟方向，到上方尖端的无意识，再回转到被划杠的主体。

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

雄伯通俗化拉康 14a

雄伯通俗化拉康 14a

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis （chapter 14a）
精神分析学四个基本概念

THE PARTIAL DRIVE AND ITS CIRCUIT
部分驱力及其迴圈

雄伯曰
在齐泽克的「神经质主体」The Ticklish Subject, 读到引述拉康「精神分析学四个基本概念」对于「部分驱力及其迴圈」的描述。

「拉康对驱力所持的意见是相当清楚的，如我们先前所见：驱力涉及了一种自我反身性的转折，而不是有主动模式，到被动模式的简单翻转。比如说，在视觉驱力中，「看到全部」的欲望，并不是简单地翻转为一种希望被大他者看见的倾向，而是一种更加暧昧之道，即「使自己被看见」

When I read in the Psychoanalytic Quarterly an article like the one by Mr Edward Glover, entitled Freudian or Neo-Freudian, directed entirely against the constructions of Mr Alexander, I sense a sordid smell of stuffiness, at the sight of a construction like that of Mr Alexander being counter-attacked in the name of obsolete criteria. Good Heavens, I did not hesitate to attack it myself in the most categorical way fourteen years ago, at the 1950 Congress of Psychiatry, but, it is the construction of a man of great talent and when I see at what level this construction is discussed, I can pay myself the complement that through all the misadventures that my discourse encounters, here and certainly elsewhere, one can say that this discourse provides an obstacle to the experience of analysis being served up to you in a completely cretinous way.

当我在精神分析学季刊看到一篇文章，作者是格洛波先生，标题是「新佛洛伊德学派」。内容完全指向反对亚力山大先生的学说。我看像亚力山大先生这样的学说，遭遇到过时的批判标准的抨击，我觉察到复辟者的故步自封。上天有眼，我自己在十四年前，在1959年的精神分析会议上，我自己也是毫不犹豫地抨击。不过，我后来目睹他的学说所讨论的层次，发现其学说才华横溢，我开始表示敬意。我自己的论述，也曾经在此地及别地，遭遇过许多阻扰及反对。我们可以说，这个论述对于精神分析学的阻碍，在于窄化应用的范围。

At this point, I will resume my discourse on the drive. I was led to approach it after positing that the transference is what manifests in experience the enacting of the reality of the unconscious, in so far as that reality is sexuality. I find that I must pause here and ask myself what this very affirmation involves. If we are sure that sexuality is present in action in the transference, it is in so far as at certain moments it is manifested in the open in the form of love. That is what it is about. Does love represent the summit, the culminating point, the indisputable factor, that makes sexuality present for us in the here and now
of the transference?

此时，我将再开始我对于驱力的论述。当我提出，在精神分析经验，移情显示无意识的真实界的扮演。因为那个真实界是性，我不得不谈到驱力。我发现，我必须在此暂停一下，问问自己，这个肯定牵涉到些什么？假如我们确定性存在于移情的行动，那是因为某个时刻，爱情的表现方式是性的缠绵。就是这么一回事。问题是，在移情的当下或当时，让性出现的无可争辩的因素，爱就是代表那个最高点，或那个性的高潮吗？

雄伯曰
「移情显示无意识的真实界，在精神分析经验时的扮演。」因为那个真实界是性，分析者跟分析家之间必然会有性的欲望产生。若是那个无意识的真实界是爱，那分析者与分析家之间，必然会有爱的欲望的移情产生。问题是，性必然会以爱作为高潮吗？或是爱以性作为高潮？

Freud’s text, not, certainly, any specific text, but the central import of those writings that deal with the drives and their vicissitudes, rejects such a view in the clearest possible way. It was this text that I began to approach last time, when I was trying to make you feel in what a problematic form, bristling
with questions, the introduction of the drive presents. I hope that many of you will have been able to refer to this text in the meantime, whether you are able to read it in German, which seems to me eminently desirable, or whether, as second best, you will be able to read it, always more or less improperly translated, in the two other languages of culture, English or French—I certainly give the worst marks to the French translation, but I will not waste time pointing out the veritable
falsifications with which it swarms.

佛洛伊德的本文，确实地，不限于任何明确的本文，在有关处理驱力及其变迁的那些著作的中心思想，都斩钉截铁地排斥这样的观点。上一次，我开始要谈论到的就是这个本文。我设法让你们了解到，介绍驱力会呈现怎样的困难重重的问题。我希望，你们许多人已经读过这篇文章。最好是德文版，我认是最直截了当。其次是其它两种语言，法文版或英文版，虽然翻译得不尽人意。对于法文版的翻译，我的批评最不佳。不过，我将不浪费时间挑剔它的错误连篇。

Even on a first reading, you would have been able to see that this article falls entirely into two parts—first, the deconstruction of the drive; secondly, the examination of das Lieben, the act of love. We shall now approach this second point.

即使乍看一遍，你都能够看出，这篇文章全部分成两个部份：第一、驱力的解构；第二、爱的行为的省察。我们现在从这二点谈起。

I
Freud says quite specifically that love can in no way be regarded as the representative of what he puts in question in the terms die ganze Sexualstrebung, that, is to say, the tendency, the forms, the convergence of the striving of the sexual, in so far as it culminates in an apprehensible whole, that would sum up its essence and function.

佛洛伊德相当明确地说，爱丝毫不能被认为是代表die ganze Sexualstrebung，换言之，他质疑的性的追求的倾向、形式、跟汇聚，因为爱的高潮要从整体来理解，这才能概括爱的本质与功能。

ICommt aber auf damit nicht zulier, that’s not at all how it happens, he cries, when answering this far-reaching suggestion. We analysts have rendered it by all sorts of misleading formulae. The whole point of the article is to show us that with regard to the biological finality of sexuality, namely, reproduction, the drives, as they present themselves in the process of psychical reality, are partial drives.

「完全不是那么一回事！」他声嘶力竭地说，当他回答这个影响深远的问题。我们精神分析师诠释的公式，很多都是误导。这篇文章的整个重点是要告诉我们，关于性作为生物的最终目标，换言之，性的繁殖或性的驱力，只是部份的驱力，因为它们是出现在心理真实界的过程。

In their structure, in the tension they establish, the drives are linked to an economic factor. This economic factor depends on the conditions in which the function of the pleasure principle is exercised at a level that I will take up again, at the right time, in the term Real-Ich. Let me say at once that we can conceptualize the Real-Ich as the central nervous system in so far as it functions, not as a system of relations, but as a system intended to ensure a certain homeostasis of the internal tensions.

在性冲动的结构，在性冲动造成的紧张，驱力与经济的因素有关。这个经济的因素，依靠快乐原理的功能所运作的状况而定，我曾在适当时刻，以「真实的自我」这个术语名之。容我立即说，这个真实的自我，我们能够构想为中央的神经系统，因为它的功能不是作为器官彼此关联的系统，而是一个用来保持内部紧张得到体内平衡的系统。

雄伯曰：
「在性冲动的结构，在性冲动造成的紧张，驱力与经济的因素有关。」这个economic 当然不是一般的经济学，而是有效率地使用资源，快乐原则的运用。而且还跟「真实的自我」有关。这个「真实自我」的定义是「它的功能不是作为器官彼此关联的系统，而是一个用来保持内部紧张，以获得体内平衡的系统。」如此推论，性的冲动驱力，跟体内的平衡的系统就息息相关啦。

It is because of the reality of the homeostatic system that sexuality comes into play only in the form of partial drives. The drive is precisely that montage by which sexuality participates in the psychical life, in a way that must conform to the gap-like structure that is the structure of the unconscious.

因为在这个体内平衡的真实界，性只是以部份驱力的形式运作。驱力确实就是那个蒙太奇画面：性介入主体的精神生活，其形式必须是，跟无意识像是个缺口的结构相一致。

雄伯曰
无意识的结构的特征是「像缺口的结构」，生理上的性參与到心理的精神生命的方式，也就是參与的到爱的演出，一方面被比喻为性作为部分驱力的蒙太奇画面的演出，另一方面，又是类似无意识的结构的缺口的结构。

Let us place ourselves at the two extremes of the analytic experience. The primal repressed is a signifier, and we can always regard what is built on this as constituting the symptom qua a scaffolding of signifiers. Repressed and symptom are homogeneous, and reducible to the functions of signifiers. Although their structure is built up step by step like any edifice, it is nevertheless, in the end, inscribable in synchronic terms.

让我们将自己放置在精神分析经验的两个极端。一是、主体的最初的能指，就是已经是被压抑。我们总是将建造在这个能指之上的东西，当着是病征的内容，当着是各种能指的鹰架。被压抑跟病征是同质性结构型的，最终能还原成为能指的功用。他们的结构像是建筑物一样逐层建造，可是，到最后，这个结构还是可以当下同时性完成。

雄伯曰
这个极端指明：原初被压抑的能指，跟病征是同质性结构。这个能指的病征结构，一方面是历史性，另一方面，又是同时性。人作为能指的病征，一方面具有原初压抑到成长累积下来的病征，另一方面，又随时因为无意识的重复出现，而会有同时性的显现。

At the other extreme, there is interpretation. Interpretation concerns the factor of a special temporal structure that I have tried to define in the term metonymy. As it draws to its end, interpretation is directed towards desire, with which, in a certain sense, it is identical. Desire, in fact, is interpretation itself. In between, there is sexuality. If sexuality, in the form of the partial drives, had not manifested itself as dominating the whole economy of this interval, our experience would be reduced to a mantic, to which the neutral term psychical energy would then have been appropriate, but in which it would miss what constitutes in it the presence, the Dasein, of sexuality.

另一个极端是，我们有解释的空间。解释牵涉到特别时间结构的因素，我曾经用转喻这个术语，定义它的内容。当解释完毕后，它被导向欲望。在某个意义上，解释是跟欲望一模一样。事实上，欲望就是解释本身。性爱就存在它们两者之间。假如性爱没有以部份驱力的方式显现自己，作为支配这个内部紧张的整个经济力量，我们精神分析经验将会沦为江湖术士的算命。我们不如用精神能源这个中性的术语，还贴切些。问题是，算命东拉西扯，就是没有明言，性欲望的存在蠢蠢欲动。

雄伯曰：
对于人作为能指的病征，会有如何「解释」的问题。而从梦里的无意识，要「解释」成为意识可以理解的内容，要用「换喻」的方法。又是朝向「欲望」。性便以部分驱力的形态，存在于「欲望」与「解释」之间，但是并没有具备支配全局的能力。而是分析家，作为解释者，成为一种预言家mantic。可是并无法置身事外地中立，因为欲望的解释本身，会形成性的实存的内涵。

The legibility of sex in the interpretation of the unconscious mechanisms is always retroactive. It would merely be of the nature of interpretation if, each moment of the history, we could be certain only that the partial drives intervened effectively in time and place. And not, as one tended to believe at the beginning of the analytic experience, in an erratic form. That infantile sexuality is not a wandering block of ice snatched from the great ice-bank of adult sexuality, intervening as an attraction over an immature subject—this was proved at once in analysis and with what, later, might seem a surprising significance.

在解释无意识机械构造时，性的明显存在，总是会有逆转作用。假如在过程的每一个时刻，我们确定的只是，性作为部份客体，随时随地介入，都会有效用，那会变成，每次提到性，就可以解释无意识，而不再是，无意识是扑朔迷离的问题，如精神分析经验初创时，我们所相信的。例如，
婴儿的性，并不是从成人的性的大冰库，捉取出来的几块零散冰块，被用来解释对于不成熟的主体的吸引。这在精神分析经验，马上就可以证实的，婴儿的性有它令人惊奇的意义。

雄伯:
「性的明显存在，总是会有逆转作用」,也就是性是实在界的无意识，在身体上被原初压抑的部分客体，若从时间的逆转作用来看，婴儿的性的重要性，未必稍逊于成年的性。

In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Freud was able to posit sexuality as essentially polymorphous aberrant. The spell of a supposed infantile innocence was broken. Because it was
imposed so early, I would almost say too early, this sexuality made us pass too quickly over an examination of what it essentially represents. That is to say that, with regard to the agency of sexuality, all subjects are equal, from the child to the adult —that they deal only with that part of sexuality that passes into the networks of the constitution of the subject, into the networks of the signifier—that sexuality is realized only through the operation of the drives in so far as they are partial drives, partial
with regard to the biological finality of sexuality.

在「有关性的理论的三篇论文」，佛洛伊德假设，性具有多样形式的变态。他破除我们一般认为婴儿是纯真无邪的偏见。他很早就下这样的定论，我几乎要说，是过早下定论，结果使我们忽略去审察，婴儿的性所代表的重要意义。换句话说，关于性的代理，所有的人都一样，从小孩到成年。他们都仅是在他们形成主体的能指的网络，处理他们遭遇到部份的性。只有透过驱力的运作，性才会当着是部份驱力被实现。就生物的整体而言，性的驱力只是部份。

The integration of sexuality into the dialectic of desire passes through the bringing into play of what, in the body, deserves to be designated by the term apparatus—if you understand by this that with which the body, with regard to sexuality, may fit itself up (s’appareiller) as opposed to that with which bodies may be paired off (s’apparier).

性被合并到欲望的辩证法，是透过在我们的身体，仪器这个术语所应该指明的内容的运作。
假如你了解这个术语的意思是，性是各自的身体，像仪器般，互相跟对方的身体适应，相对于两个身体的互相交媾。

雄伯曰
性跟欲望的辩证法息息相关。因此性的交媾时，若仅是两个身体的性器官的磨擦与互动，没有牵动到欲望的辩证法，那必然是性的交媾的失败，因为爱的高潮没有随之出现。

If all is confusion in the discussion of the sexual drives it is because one does not see that the drive represents no doubt, but merely represents, and partially at that, the curve of fulfillment of sexuality in the living being. Is it surprising that its final term should be death, when the presence of sex in the living being is bound up with death?

有关性的驱力的讨论会如此混乱，是因为我们没有看出，无可置疑地，性代表，仅是代表，而且仅是部份代表，人作为生物主体，性的满足的部份曲线。若我说，性的最后术语是死亡，性在生物界跟死亡息息相关，你会大吃一惊吗？

雄伯曰：
性不仅跟爱息息相关，还跟死亡息息相关。如同日本电影「失乐园」，性爱到最高潮，竟是寻求死亡作为了结。

Today I have copied out on the blackboard a fragment of Heracitus, which I found in the monumental work in which Diels has gathered together for us the scattered remains of the pre-Socratic period. To the bow (Bids), he writes, and this emerges for us as one of his lessons in wisdom which, before all
the circuit of scientific elaboration, went straight to the target, to the bow is given the name of life and its work is death.

今天，我在黑板上抄写几句赫拉西达思的片断。这是从帝尔思为我们编辑的那本伟大巨着，前苏格拉底时代，保存下来的断简残篇，我挑选出来的片断。在科学研究昌明之前，他这句智慧的教导启人深省。他写到，「拉弓射箭，要直接到达目标，它的目标是生命，但是结果却是死亡。」

雄伯曰
赫拉西达思的片断，值的让人深思：
to the bow is given the name of life and its work is death.
「拉弓射箭，要直接到达目标，它的目标是生命，但是结果却是死亡。」
性作为部分驱力，原先是要获得爱的高潮的满足，以回归实在界的无意识，结果却是死亡。对于符号界the symbolic而言，实在界的无意识，意味着「生命」？还是「死亡」？人作为欠缺的能指，该何去何从？

What the drive integrates at the outset in its very existence is a dialectic of the bow, I would even say of archery. In this way we can situate its place in the psychical economy.

从一开始，驱力存在的整体，就是这个拉弓射箭的辩证法。我不妨称之为弓箭术的辩证法。以这种方式，我们能够将驱力的位置，定位在心理活动的位置。

雄伯曰：
如果照这个公式，性的部分驱力是要获得爱的满足，结果所获得却是爱的失落。通过性来获得爱，这是很多的男女的期盼，看来大部分人都必然落空，不是没有道理. 性绝非单纯身体或生理的活动，而且牵涉到心理及心灵的问题。譬如，手淫不仅是欠缺性伴侣时的一种方便，而是对于自我心灵的认同，远胜过对于性的对象的期盼的认同。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 505

Concept 505

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

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

This requirement of a distinct consistency in the details of its telling signifies that the realization of the signifier will never be able to be careful enough in its memorization to succeed in designating the primacy of the significance as such. To develop it by
varying the significations is, therefore, it would seem, to elude it.

清楚一貫性的要求，在它述說的細節，意味著：能指的實現永遠無法足夠細心，在其記憶裏，成功地指明意義本身的原初性。以變化意義的方式來發展它，因此看起來等於躲避它。

This variation makes one forget the aim of the significance by transforming its act into a game, and giving it certain outlets that go some way to satisfying the pleasure principle.

這種變化使我們忘記意義的目標，因為它轉移它的行動成為遊戲，並且給予它某種的發洩。這些發洩在某個程度有助於滿足快樂原則。

When Freud grasps the repetition involved in the game played by his grandson, in the reiterated fort-da, he may indeed point out that the child makes up for the effect of his mother’s disappearance by making himself the agent of it—but, this phenomenon is of secondary importance.

當佛洛伊德理解到，他的孫子玩弄的遊戲牽涉到的「重複」，在反復的「去來遊戲」，他可能確實指出：小孩為了彌補母親不在家的影響，讓他自己成為它的代理—但是這個現象是次要。

Wallon stresses that the child does not immediately watch the door through which his mother has disappeared, thus indicating that he expects to see her return through it, but that his vigilance was aroused earlier, at the very point she left him, at the point she moved away from him.

萬頓強調，小孩並沒有立即觀看這道門，通過這道門，母親消失，因此指示著，他期盼看到母親經過那道門回來。但是他的警覺更早被喚起，在她離開他之時，在她移動離開他之時。

The ever-open gap introduced by the absence indicated remains the cause of a centrifugal tracing in which that which falls is not the other qua face in which the subject is projected, but that cotton-reel linked to itself by the thread that it holds—in which is expressed that which, of itself, detaches itself in this trial, self.mutilation on the basis of which the order of significance will be put in perspective.

由於被指明的母親不在，導致的這個越來越開的差距，始終是一種離心痕跡的原因。在這個原因裏，掉落的東西並不是，生命主體被投射的作為表面的它者，而是跟它自己連接一塊由它掌控的棉線捲軸—在裏面被表達的是在這個考驗裏自己被疏離的東西，也就是自我殘損。根據這個自我殘損，意義的秩序才能被面對觀看。

For the game of the cotton-reel is the subject’s answer to what the mother’s absence
has created on the frontier of his domain—the edge of his cradle—namely, a ditch, around which one can only play at ‘—jumping.

因為這個棉線線軸的遊戲，是生命主體對於母親不在，在他的領域的邊界，所引起的的回應—也就是在他的搖籃的邊緣—換句話說，這是一條橫溝，在橫溝四周，我們能夠玩跳躍的遊戲。

This reel is not the mother reduced to a little ball by some magical game worthy of the Jivaros—it is a small part of the subject that detaches itself from him while still remaining his, still retained.

這個棉線線軸並不是母親，被類似具有「吉凡洛斯」的魔術名聲的魔術遊戲，化簡成為一個小球—這是一生命主體的一小部分，本身跟他疏離，而依舊保留是他的一部分。

This is the place to say, in imitation of Aristotle, that man thinks with his object. It is with his object that the child leaps the frontiers of his domain, transformed into a well， and begins the incantation.

讓我們類比亞力斯多德的方式說，人使用他的客體在思考。使用他的客體，小孩跳躍到他的領域的邊界，被轉變成為一口井，然後開始召喚魔法。

If it is true that the signifier is the first mark of the subject, how can we fail to recognize here —from the very fact that this game is accompanied by one of the first oppositions to appear—that it is in the object to which the opposition is applied in act, the reel, that we must designate the subject. To this object we will later give the name it bears in the Lacanian algebra—the petit a.

假如能指確實是生命主體的最早標誌，我們在此如何會體認不出—根據這個事實，這個遊戲伴隨著一個最初的對立之一—就在對立被應用到行動裏的客體，我們指明這個生命主體。對於這個客體，我們後來將會給予它負戴的名字，在拉康的代數公式—那就是小客體。

The activity as a whole symbolizes repetition, but not at all that of some need that might demand the return of the mother, and which would be expressed quite simply in a cry.

作為整體的活動象徵著重複，可是根本不是某種需要的重複，需要母親的回來。這種需要，小孩只要用苦就能表達。

It is the repetition of the mother’s departure as cause of a Spaltung in the subject —overcome by the alternating game, fort-da, which is a here or there, and whose aim, in its alternation, is simply that of being the fort of a da, and the da of a fort.

就是母親離開作為生命主體的「分裂」的原因—用這個輪替的「去來遊戲」所克復的這種重複，在此或在彼，它的整個目標，在它的輪替中，「去」代替「來」，以及「來」代替「去」。

It is aimed at what, essentially, is not there, qua represented—for it is the game
itself that is the Rep räsentanz of the Vorstellung. What will become of the Vorstellung when, once again, this Reprasentanc of the mother—in her outline made up of the brush-strokes and gouaches of desire—will be lacking?

它的目標，基本上並不是在那裏，作為被代表物—因為遊戲的本身，才是母親「意象」的再現物。作為母親意象的再現物，再一次，會在她的輪廓裏，組成欲望的水彩畫及水粉畫—-那個再現物會發生怎樣的事情？

I, too, have seen with my own eyes, opened by maternal divination, the child, traumatized by the fact that I was going away despite the appeal, precociously adumbrated in his voice, and henceforth more renewed for months at a time—long
after, having picked up this child—I have seen it let his head fall on my shoulder and drop off to sleep, sleep alone being capable of giving him access to the living signifier that I had become since the date of the trauma.

根據這個母親不在所做的推測，我曾經親眼看過小孩，受到這個事實的創傷。因為儘管他的聲音預先透露的這個懇求，我還是離開，一口氣隔好幾個月，才重新開始—跟我接受這個小孩的個案，過了很久以後—我曾經看到小孩將頭依靠我的肩膀，沉沉入睡。單獨入睡讓他能夠接近，自從創傷的時日以來，我已經成為他的具體能指。

You will see that this sketch that I have given you today of the function of the tuche will be essential for us in rectifying what is the duty of the analyst in the interpretation of the transference.

你們將會看出，我今天給予你們的這個描述，有關「重複」的功用，對於我們而言，將是很重要的，用來改正精神分析師的責任，當他在解釋移情時。

Let me just stress today that it is not in vain that analysis posits itself as modulating in a more radical way this relation of man to the world that has always been regarded as knowledge.

讓我們今天僅是強調，這並不是白費力氣，精神分析提出本身，以一種更加積極的方式，調適人跟世界的關係。這個關係始終是被認為是知識。

If knowledge is so often, in theoretical writings, related to something similar to the relation between ontogenesis and phylogenesis—it is as the result of a confusion, and we shall show next time that the very originality of psycho-analysis lies in the fact that it does not centre psychological ontogenesis on supposed stages—which have literally no discoverable foundation in development observable in biological terms.

假如在理論的著作裏，知識往往關係到，類似個體發生學與眾族發生學之間的關係—這是一種混淆的結果。下一次，我們將會顯示，精神分析的原創性在於這個事實：它並沒有將心理的個體起源論集中在被認為的階段—這些階段實質上並沒有可發現的基礎，在生物術語可觀察的發展。

If development is entirely animated by accident, by the obstacle of the tuch， it is in so far as the tuché brings us back to the same point at which pre-Socratic philosophy sought to motivate the world itself.

假如發展完全是由於偶發性所激發，被「重複」的阻礙所激發，那是因為「重複」引導我們回到這個相同點，蘇格拉底前期的哲學就曾在這個相同點，設法激發世界本身的動機。

It required a clinamen, an inclination, at some point. When Democritus tried to designate it, presenting himself as already the adversary of a pure function of negativity in order to introduce thought into it, he says, It is not the μηδενis essential, and adds—thus showing you that from what one of my pupils called the archaic stage of philosophy, the manipulation of words was used just as in the time of Heidegger—it is not an wØiv, but a öev, which, in Greek, is a coined word.

在某個時刻，這要求一種傾向。當德莫克利圖斯嘗試指明它，呈現他自己作為是負面的純粹功用的敵意，為了介紹思想進入它，他說：重要的並不是這個「μηδεν」。然後他補充說—因此跟你們顯示：從我的一位學生所謂的哲學的過時階段，對於文字的操控被使用，如同在海德格的時代—重要的不是「wØiv」，而是「öev」。在希臘文，這是一個被鑄造的字。

He did not say ξν, let alone δγ. What, then, did he say? He said, answering the question I asked today, that of idealism, Nothing, perhaps?—not perhaps nothing, but not nothing.

他並沒有說「ξν」，更沒有說「δγ」。那麼他到底說什麼？他說，回答我今天問的問題，唯心論的問題。或許，空無一物—或許不是空無一物，而是並非是空無一物。

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 提問與回答

F. D0LT0: I don’t see how, in describing the formation of intelligence up to the age of three or four, one can do without stages. I think that as far as the. defence phantasies and the phantasies of the castration veil are concerned, and also the threats of mutilation, one needs to refer to the stages.

佛、德托：我不明白，當你描述智慧的形成，直到三四歲時，我們能夠免除不用階段。我認為，就防衛的幻見於閹割面紗的幻見而言，切割的威脅而言，我們都需要提到階段。

LACAN: The description of the stages, which go to form the libido, must not be referred to some natural process of pseudomaturation, which always remains opaque.

拉康：對於階段的描述，會形成生命的力比多，一定不要跟偽成熟的某個自然過程混淆，那總是晦澀難懂。

The stages are organized around the fear of castration. The copulatory fact of the introduction of sexuality is traumatizing—this is a snag of some size—and it has an organizing function for development.

階段被組織，環繞著閹割的恐懼。性的介紹的這個交媾的事實，是令人創傷的—這是某種的暗礁—對於發展，它具有一種組織的功用。

The fear of castration is like a thread that perforates all the stages of development. It orientates the relations that are anterior to its actual appearance—weaning, toilet training, etc.

對於閹割的恐懼，就像一條線索，貫穿發展的所有階段。它將先前的關係，定向於它的實際的出現，斷奶，自行上盥洗室的訓練，等等。

It crystallizes each of these moments in a dialectic that has as its centre a bad encounter. If the stages are consistent, it is in accordance with their possible registration in terms of bad encounters.

閹割具體表現每一個這樣的時刻，以一種不好的邂逅，作為它的中心。假如階段是一貫，那是符合它們可能的銘記，以這些不好的邂逅。

The central bad encounter is at the level of the sexual. This does not mean that the stages assume a sexual taint that is diffused on the basis of the fear of castration. On the contrary, it is because this empathy is not produced that one speaks of trauma and primal scene.
12 February 1964

作為中心的不好的邂逅，在性的層次。這並不意味著，階段具有性的污點，根據閹割的恐懼的基礎擴散。相反地，因為當我們談到創傷及原初場景時，這個同理心並沒有被產生。
1964年2月12日

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

精神分析四个基本观念 504

Concept 501

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

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

This is certainly what brings us to recognizing in this detached sentence from the dream of the grief-stricken father the counterpart of what will be, once he is awake, his consciousness, and to ask ourselves what is the correlative, in the dream, of the
representation.

這確實是我們被引導體認出這個相對之物，在這個跟痛苦萬分的父親的夢分隔的句子，當一旦他醒來，他的意識將會是什麼的相對之物。我們被引導詢問我們自己，在夢裏，跟這個情景的再現相關的是什麼。

This question is all the more striking in that, here, we see the dream really as the counterpart of the representation; it is the imagery of the dream and it is an opportunity for us to stress what Freud, when he speaks of the unconscious,
designates as that which essentially determines it, the Vorstellungsreprasentanz.

這個問題是更加耐人尋味，因為在此，我們看到這個夢，真正作為情景再現的相對之物。這是夢的意象，這是個機會我們能夠強調，當佛洛伊德談到無意識，他指明作為基本上決定無意識的東西，那就是「Vorstellungsreprasentanz.」

This means not, as it has been mistranslated, the representative representative (le reprCsentant représentatif), but that which takes the place of the representation (Ic tenantlieu tie la representation).

這並不意味著一般所誤譯的「再現」，而是發生在再現情景裏的東西。

We shall see its function later. I hope I have helped you to grasp what is nodal in the
encounter, qua encounter forever missed, and which really sustains, in Freud’s text, what seems to him, in his dream, absolutely exemplary.

我們以後將會看出它的功用。我希望我曾經幫忙你們理解這種邂逅的節點，作為永遠被漏失的邂逅。在佛洛伊德的文本，它真正維持在他的夢裏他覺得是絕對典範的東西。

The place of the real, which stretches from the trauma to the phantasy—in so far as the phantasy is never anything more than the screen that conceals something quite primary, something determinant in the function of repetition—this is what we must now examine.

真實界的位置，從創傷延伸到幻見—幻見永遠不是別的，那就是隱藏某件相當原初的螢幕，某件決定性的東西，在重複的功用—這是我們現在必須檢視的。

This, indeed, is what, for us, explains both the ambiguity of the function of awakening and of the function of the real in this awakening. The real may be represented by the accident, the noise, the small element of reality, which is evidence that we are not dreaming.

對於我們而言，這確實是解釋為什麼，清醒的功用與在這個清醒裏，真實界的功用，會有曖昧模糊的地方。真實界可能由這個意外，這個噪音，這個現實界的小因素所代表。這證明我們不是正在作夢。

But, on the other hand, this reality is not so small, for what wakes us is the other
reality hidden behind the lack of that which takes the place of representation—this, says Freud is the Trieb.

但是在另一方面，這個現實界並不是如此小，因為喚醒我們的東西，是另外一個現實界，它被隱藏在發生于再現情景的東西的欠缺。佛洛伊德說，這就是「Trieb」

But be careful! We have not yet said what this Trieb is —and if, for lack of representation, it is not there, what is this Trieb? We may have to consider it as being only Trieb to come.

但是小心？我們還沒有說到這個「Trieb驅力」是什麼—假如，由於欠缺再現情景，它並不在那裏，那這個「Trieb驅力」是什麼？我們可能必須認為它是未來的唯一「Trieb驅力」。

How can we fall to see that awakening works in two directions— and that the awakening that re-situates us in a constituted and represented reality carries out two tasks?
我們如何會看不出：清醒朝兩個方向運作？重新定位我們在情景構成與再現的現實界的清醒，執行的是兩種工作？

The real has to be sought beyond the dream—in what the dream has enveloped, hidden from us, behind the lack of representation of which there is only one representative. This is the real that governs our activities more than any other and it is psychoanalysis that designates it for us.

真實界必須在超越夢的地方被尋求—在夢已經涵蓋的部分，隱藏不給我們知道的部分，處於再現情景的欠缺背後，那裏只有一位再現物。這就是真實界，統治我們的活動，勝過其他活動。這是精神分析指明它給我們。

3
Thus Freud finds himself providing the solution to the problem which, for the most acute of the questioners of the soul before him—Kierkegaard—had already been centred on repetition.

因此，佛洛伊德發現他自己供應這個難題的解答。對於在他之前，最為敏銳的靈魂探問者—齊克果—這個難題已經集中在「重複」。

I would ask you to re-read Kierkegaard’s essay on Repetition, so dazzling in its lightness and ironic play, so truly Mozartian in the way, so reminiscent of Don Giovanni, it abolishes the mirages of love.

我將會要求你們重新閱讀齊克果的論文「重複」。那篇論文揮灑的多麼的輕佻反諷，令人目眩撩亂，讓人想起莫劄特的音樂，「唐、吉奧梵尼」。它廢除了愛的幻見。

With great acuteness, and in a quite unanswerable way, Kierkegaard stresses the feature that, in his love, the young man—whose portrait Kierkegaard paints for us with a mixture of emotion and derision—addresses only to himself through the medium of memory.

敏銳萬分而且無由回答，齊克果強調這個特徵：在他的愛裏，這位年輕人—他的肖像，齊克果跟我們描繪出來，混合著情感與嘲弄—他通過記憶的媒介，跟他自己表白。

Really, is there not something here more profound than La Rochefoucauld’s remark that few would experience love if they had not had its ways and means explained to them? Yes, but who began it?

的確，比起羅查佛科德的說教，在此難道不是有某件更加深刻？這個說教的內容是：假如人們沒有遵照愛的方式及方法尋求愛，沒有幾個人會經驗到愛。說得沒錯。但是誰先開始這樣的愛呢？

And does not everything essentially begin by deceiving the first to whom the
enchantment of love was addressed—who has passed off this enchantment as the exaltation of the other, by making himself the prisoner of this exaltation, of this breathlessness which, with the other, has created the most false of demands, that of
narcissistic satisfaction, the ego ideal whether it is or the ego that regards itself as the ideal?

愛的一切，難道基本上不是從欺騙受到愛的迷惑的對方開始？對方假裝這個迷惑，作為另一方的昇華，讓他自己成為這個昇華，這個陶醉的囚犯，然後跟另一方在一起，創造最為虛假的要求，自戀滿足的要求，自我理想的要求，不管是自我真的是理想，還是認為自己是理想的自我。

Freud is not dealing with any repetition residing in the natural, no return of need, any more than is Kierkegaard. The return of need is directed towards consumption placed at the service of appetite. Repetition demands the new. It is turned towards the ludic, which finds its dimension in this new —Freud also tells us this in the chapter I referred to last time.

佛洛伊德並沒有處理駐居在自然界的重複，也沒有處理需要的回轉，正如齊克果也沒有。需要的回轉被引導朝向放置在替欲望服侍的消費。重複要求這個新的東西。它被引導朝向在這個新的東西，找到它的維度的「嬉戲」。

Whatever, in repetition, is varied, modulated, is merely alienation of its meaning. The adult, and even the more advanced child, demands something new in his activities, in his games.

在重複裏，任何變化，調適的東西，都僅是它自己的意義的疏離。成年人，甚至年紀較大的小孩，都要求某件新的東西，在他的活動，在他的遊戲裏。

But this ‘sliding-away’ (glissement) conceals what is the true secret of the ludic, namely, the most radical diversity constituted by repetition in itself. It can be seen in the child, in his first movement, at the moment when he is formed as a human being, manifesting himself as an insistence that the story should always be the same, that its recounted realization should be ritualized, that is to say, textually the same.

但是這個「溜走」隱藏「嬉戲」的真正秘密。換句話說，由重複本身形成的廣泛多樣性。我們從小孩身上看到，在他第一個行動，在他被形成人類的時刻，展現他自己，作為一種堅持：故事應總是一樣，故事的描述的實現應該儀式化。也就是說，作為「我」的文本總是一樣。

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

精神分析四个基本观念 503

Concept 503

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

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

If the function of the dream is to prolong sleep, if the dream, after all, may come so near to the reality that causes it, can we not say that it might correspond to this reality without emerging from sleep? After all, there is such a thing as somnambulistic
activity.

假如夢的功用是要延長睡眠，假如夢， 畢竟，可能如此靠近引起它的現實，我們難道不能說，它可能沒有從睡眠裏出現，就回應現實界？畢竟，有夢遊症這麼一回事。

The question that arises, and which indeed all Freud’s previous indications allow us here to produce, is— What is it that wakes the sleeper? Is it not, in the dream, another reality? —the reality that Freud describes thus—Dass das Kind an seinem Bette steht, that the child is near his bed, ihn am takes him by the arm and whispers to him reproachfully, und ihm vorwurfsvoll Vater, siehst du denn nicht, Father, can’t you see, dass ich verbrenne, that I am burning?

這個出現的問題，確是是所有佛洛伊德先前的指示，容許我們在此產生的是—是什麼喚醒睡眠者？在夢裏，這難道不是另外一個現實界？佛洛伊德描述如下：這小孩靠近他的床，捉住他的手臂，小聲跟他譴責說：「你難道沒有看見，我身上著火了？」

Is there not more reality in this message than in the noise by which the father also identifies the strange reality of what is happening in the room next door. Is not the missed reality that caused the death of the child expressed in these words?

在這個訊息，比起這個噪音，難道沒有更多的現實界？父親根據這個噪音辨認這起奇特的現實界，隔壁房間正在發生的事情。這難道不是引起兒子死亡死亡的漏失的現實界，用這些話在表達？

Freud himself does not tell us that we must recognize in this sentence what perpetuates for the father those words forever separated from the dead child that were said to him, perhaps, Freud supposes, because of the fever—but who knows, perhaps
these words perpetuate the remorse felt by the father that the man he has put at his son’s bedside to watch over him may not be up to his task: die Besorgnis dass dergreise Wdchter seiner Aufgabe nichtgewachsen sein he may not be up to his job, in fact, he has gone to sleep.

佛洛伊德發本人並沒有告訴我們，我們必須在這個句子裏體認出，已經跟死去的小孩分開的，對父親強調的那些話，佛洛伊德認為是因為發高燒，而跟他說—但是誰曉得，或許這些話強調父親感覺到的悔恨，他交付照顧在兒子床邊的那個人，可能沒有盡到他的職責，他可能沒有盡到他的責任，事實上他已經睡著了。

Does not this sentence, said in relation to fever, you what, in one of my recent lectures, I called the cause of fever? And is not the action, apparently so urgent, of preventing
what is happening in the next room also perhaps felt as being in any case too late now, in relation to what is at issue, in the psychical reality manifested in the words spoken?

這個句子，因為發高燒才說的這個句子，在我最近的演講裏，難道不就是我所謂的發高燒的原因？這個行動，顯而易見是如此迫切，要阻止隔壁房間發生的事情，或許被感覺到目前已經太遲了，相關於所爭論的事情，在用被說出的話展示的心理現實界？

Is not the dream essentially, one might say, an act of homage to the missed reality—the reality that can no longer produce itself except by repeating itself endlessly, in some never attained awakening? What encounter can there be henceforth with that forever inert being—even now being devoured by the flames—if not the encounter that occurs precisely at the moment when, by accident, as if by chance, the flames come to meet him?

這個夢基本上難道不是一種表達敬意的一種行動，對於被漏失的現實界？這個現實界不再產生它自己，除了永無止盡地重複它自己，在永遠沒有獲得裏？因此對於那個永遠是惰性的生命實存，能夠有怎樣的邂逅？甚至現在正在被火焰吞沒—這難道不是這個邂逅確實發生在這個時刻，當偶然地，好像湊巧地，火焰前來會他？

Where is the reality in this accident, if not that it repeats something actually more fatal by means of reality, a reality in which the person who was supposed to be watching
over the body still remains asleep, even when the father reemerges after having woken up?

這個意外的現實界在哪里？難道不就是它憑藉現實界重複某件實際上更加致命的東西？這個現實界是，應該照顧身體的這個人，依舊還在睡眠當中，甚至當父親醒來後出現在那裏。

Thus the encounter, forever missed, has occurred between dream and awakening, between the person who is still asleep and whose dream we will not know and the person who has dreamt merely in order not to wake up.

因此邂逅，永遠被漏失，曾經發生在夢與清醒之間，發生在這個依舊睡覺，而我們不知道他的夢的這個人，與曾經作夢，為了不要醒來的這個人之間。

If Freud, amazed, sees in this the confirmation of his theory of desire, it is certainly a sign that the dream is not a phantasy fulfilling a wish.

假如佛洛伊德在這裏，感到驚奇地看到，他的欲望的理論的驗證，那確實是一種跡象：夢並不是實現欲望的幻見。

For it is not that, in the dream, he persuades himself that the son is still alive. But the terrible vision of the dead son taking the father by the arm designates a beyond that makes itself heard in the dream.

因為在夢裏，他說服他自己，兒子依舊還活著。但是死去兒子捉住父親手臂的可怕景象，指明著一種超越，使它自己在夢裏被聽見。

Desire manifests itself in the dream by the loss expressed in an image at the most cruel point of the object.

欲望在夢裏顯示它自己，根據一個意象處於客體最殘酷時被表達的損失。

It is only in the dream that this truly unique encounter can occur. Only a rite, an endlessly repeated act, can commemorate this not very memorable encounter—for no one can say what the death of a child is, except the father qua father, that is to say, no conscious being.

只有在夢裏，這個確實獨特的邂逅會發生。只是一個儀式，一個永無止盡地重複的行動，能夠慶祝這個沒有什麼值得紀念的邂逅—因為沒有人能夠說，死去的小孩是什麼，除了父親作為父親，換句話說，並不是意識的生命實存。

For the true formula of atheism is not God is dead—even by basing the origin of the function of the father upon his murder, Freud protects the father—the true formula of atheism is God is unconscious.

對於無神論的真實公式，並不是上帝已死—甚至根據將父親的功用的起源，建立在對他的謀殺上，佛洛伊德保護這個父親—無神論的真正公式是：上帝是無意識。

The awakening shows us the waking state of the subject’s consciousness in the representation of what has happened —the unfortunate accident in reality, against which one can do no more than take steps! But what, then, was this accident?

這個清醒跟我們顯示，生命主體的意識到清醒狀態，在所發生的事情的再現—在現實界的不幸的意外。我們僅能採取行動來對抗這個意外！但是要問的是，這個意外是什麼？

When everybody is asleep, including the person who wished to take a little rest, the person who was unable to maintain his vigil and the person of whom some well intentioned individual, standing at his bedside, must have said, He looks just as if he is asleep, when we know only one thing about him, and that is that, in this entirely sleeping world, only the voice is heard, Father, can’t you see I’m burning?

當每個人在睡眠當中，包括希望稍微休息的人，無法維持他的警覺的人，某個我們必須說他是具有善意的個人，站在他的床邊的這個人。他看起來好像他睡著，而我們對他只知道一件事情。那就是在他完全沉睡的世界裏，只有一個聲音被聽見：父親，你難道沒有看見，我身上正在著火嗎？

This sentence is itself a firebrand— of itself it brings fire where it falls—and one cannot see what is burning, for the flames blind us to the fact that the fire bears on the Unterlegt, on the Unt.ertragen, on the real.

這個句子本身是就是一個火把—它本身就帶來火焰，無論它掉在哪里—我們無法看出是什麼正在燃燒，因為火焰使我們看不見這個事實：火跟真實界有關。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 502

Concept 502

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

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

In effect, the trauma is conceived as having necessarily been marked by the subjectifying homeostasis that orientates the whole functioning defined by the pleasure principle.

實際上，創傷被構想為必須被主體化的體內平衡標示。這種體內平衡則是根據快樂原則定義的整個功用為取向。

Our experience then presents us with a problem, which derives from the fact that, at the very heart of the primary processes, we see preserved the insistence of the trauma in making us aware of its existence.

我們的精神分析經驗因此呈現給我們一個難題。這個難題來自於這個事實：在原初過程的核心，我們看見創傷的持續被保留，當它讓我們知道它的存在時。

The trauma reappears, in effect, frequently unveiled. How can the dream, the bearer of the subject’s desire, produce that which makes the trauma emerge repeatedly—if
not its very face, at least the screen that shows us that it is still there behind?

實際上，創傷重新出現，時常被遮蔽。夢是生命主體欲望的負載者，它如會產生使創傷重複出現的東西？這難道不是在夢的表面？至少在跟我們顯示它依舊還留置在背後的螢幕上？

Let us conclude that the reality system, however far it is developed, leaves an essential part of what belongs to the real a prisoner in the toils of the pleasure principle.

讓我們下個結論：現實界的系統，無論它多麼地高度發展，它總是留下屬於真實界的一個重要的部分，在快樂原則裏充當勞苦的囚犯。

It is this that we have to investigate, this reality, one might say, whose presence is supposed to be required by us, if the motive force of development, as it is represented for us by someone like Melanie Klein, for example, is not reducible to a formula like the one I used earlier, namely, is a dream.

我們必須研究這一點，這個現實界，我們可以說，它的存在被認為是被我們要求，譬如，類似梅蘭妮、克萊恩這樣的人所代表，假如發展的動機的力量無法化簡為公式，像我早先所用的，也就是：人生如夢。

To this requirement correspond those radical points in the real that I call encounters, and which enable us to conceive reality as unterlegt, untertragen, which, with the superb ambiguity of the French language, appear to be translated by the same word —souffrance. Reality is in abeyance there, awaiting attention. And Zwang, constraint, which Freud defines by Wiederholung, governs the very diversions of the primary process.

我所謂的邂逅的真實界，那些積極的要點，就對應這個要求。這個要求使我們能夠構想現實界，作為「陰影」。由於法文語言的超級曖昧，這個字詞似乎被翻譯成這個相等語「痛苦懸置」。現實界處於「中止」那裏，等待獲得注意。佛洛伊德使用「重複」定義的「約束」，操控著原初過程的轉向。

The primary process—which is simply what I have tried to define for you in my last few lectures in the form of the unconscious— must, once again, be apprehended in its experience of rupture, between perception and consciousness, in that nontemporal
locus, I said, which forces us to posit what Freud calls, in homage to Fechner, die Idee einer anderer Lokalitdt, the idea of another locality, another space, another scene, the
between perception and consciousness.

這個原初的過程—這僅是我嘗試跟你們定義，在我過去幾次演講，以無意識的形式—它再一次被理解作為它斷裂的經驗，處於感覺與意識之間。我說過，因為非時間的軌跡，強迫我們提出佛洛伊德所說，費奇那表示致敬，那是另外一個地區，另外一個空間，另外一個場景的觀念，處於感覺與意識之間。

2
We can, at any moment, apprehend this primary process. The other day, I was awoken from a short nap by knocking at my door just before I actually awoke. With this impatient knocking I had already formed a dream, a dream that manifested to me something other than this knocking.

我們能夠隨時理解這個原初的過程。前天，我從簡短的午寐喚醒，在我實際醒來之前，由於聽到門的敲門聲。由於這個急促的敲門聲，我已經形成一個夢，這個夢跟我顯示某件並不是這個敲門聲。

And when I awake, it is in so far as I reconstitute my entire representation
around this knocking—this perception—that I am aware of it. I know that I am there, at what time I went to sleep, and why I went to sleep. When the knocking occurs, not in my perception, but in my consciousness, it is because my consciousness
reconstitutes itself around this I know that I am waking up, that I am knocked up.

But here I must question myself as to what I am at that moment—at the moment, so immediately before and so separate, which is that in which I began to dream under the effect of the knocking which is, to all appearances, what woke me.

當我醒來時，我重新建構我整個的夢境再現，環繞這個敲門聲—這個感覺—我知道它。我知道我在那裏，在什麼時候我想要睡覺，及為什麼我睡著。當敲門聲發生時，不是在我的感覺裏，而是在我的意識裏。那是因為我的意識重新建構它自己，環繞這一點。我知道我正在醒來，我正被敲門聲叫醒。

Observe what I am directing you towards—towards the symmetry of that structure that makes me, after the awakening knock, able to sustain myself, apparently only in a relation with my representation, which, apparently, makes of me only consciousness.

請觀察我正在引導你們朝向—朝向那種結構的均稱。在叫醒的敲門聲後，那個結構的均稱使我能夠維持我自己，顯而易見地，僅是處於跟我的再現情景有關。這顯而易見的，使我形成僅是意識的我，
。
A sort of involuted reflection—in my consciousness, it is only my representation that I recover possession of.

這是一種恢復原狀的反思—在我的意識裏。我恢復擁有的，僅是我的再現的情景。

Is that all? Freud has told us often enough that he would have to go back to the function of consciousness, but he never did. Perhaps we shall see better what is at issue, by apprehending what is there that motivates the emergence of the represented
reality, namely the phenomenon, distance, the gap itself that constitutes awakening.

僅是如此嗎？佛洛伊德時常告訴我們，他將必須回到意識到功用，但是他從來沒有這樣做。或許我們將會更加清楚地看出什麼受到爭論，假如我們理解是什們激發被代表的現實界的出現。也就是說，構成醒來的這個現象，距離，差距的本身。

To make things quite clear, let us return to the dream —which is also made up entirely of noise—that I left you time to look up in The Interpretation of Dreams. You will remember the unfortunate father who went to rest in the room next to the
one in which his dead child lay—leaving the child in the care, we are told, of another old man—and who is awoken by something.

為了使事情清楚，讓我們回到夢—夢也是由噪音組成—我留給你們時間去查閱「夢的解析」。你們將會記得這位不幸的父親。他到他死去的兒子的隔壁房間休息—留下小孩讓另外一位老人照顧，我們被告訴—他被某件事情叫醒。

By what? It is not only the reality, the shock, the knocking, a noise made to recall him to the real, but this expresses, in his dream, the quasi-identity of what is happening,
the very reality of an overturned candle setting light to the bed in which his child lies.

被什麼叫醒？不僅是現實界，震驚，敲門聲，有個聲音讓他回想到真實界，而且在他的夢裏，這個噪音表達類似在詢問：什麼事正在發生？蠟燭傾覆的現實界，點燃他的兒子睡覺的床。

Such an example hardly seems to confirm Freud’s thesis in the Traumdeutung—that the dream is the realization of a desire.

這樣的例子似乎無法驗證佛洛伊德的在「夢的解析」的主題：夢是一種欲望的實現。

What we see emerging here, almost for the first time, in the Traumdeutung, is a function of the dream of an apparently secondary kind—in this case, the dream satisfies only the need to prolong sleep. What, then, does Freud mean by placing,
at this point, this particular dream, stressing that it is in itself full confirmation of his thesis regarding dreams?

在此我們看到正在出現，幾乎是第一次，在「夢的解析」。這是很明顯是第二種的夢的功用—在這個情形，夢只滿足延長睡眠的需要。那麼，佛洛伊德是什麼意思？在這個時候，在這個特別的夢裏，他強調夢的本身就充分驗證他關於夢的主題？

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 501

Concept 501

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

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

Psycho-analysis is not an idealism 精神分析並不是唯心論
The real as trauma 作為創傷的真實界
Theory of the dream and of waking 夢與清醒的理論
Consciousness and representation. 意識與再現
God is unconscious 上帝即無意識
The objet petit a in the fort-da 去回遊戲的小客體

Today I shall continue the examination of the concept of repetition, as it is presented by Freud and the experience of psycho-analysis.

今天，我將繼續檢視重複的觀念，依照佛洛伊德與精神分析經驗對它的呈現。

I wish to stress here that, at first sight, psycho-analysis seems to lead in the direction of idealism.

我希望在此強調，乍然一看，精神分析似乎引導朝向唯心論。

God knows that it has been reproached enough for this—it reduces the experience, some say, that urges us to find in the hard supports of conflict, struggle, even of the exploitation of man by man, the reasons for our deficiencies—it leads to an ontology of the tendencies, which it regards as primitive, internal, already given by the condition of the subject.

天曉得，它因為這樣已經飽受譴責—有些人說，它簡化精神分析經，這個經驗建議我們要在衝突、奮鬥，甚至人對人的剝削利用的艱苦背景，找出我們欠缺的理由。唯心論則是導致一種傾向的本體論，將它們視為是原始與內在，已經由生命主體的情況所給予。

We have only to consider the course of this experience from its first steps to see, on the contrary, that it in no way allows us to accept some such aphorism as life is a dream. No praxis is more orientated towards that which, at the heart of experience,
is the kernel of the real than psycho-analysis.

我們只要從它的前面幾個步驟，考慮這個精神經驗的過程，我們就會看出：相反的，它絲毫沒有容許我們接受「人生如夢」這樣的警語。在精神經驗的核心，沒有一個本體，會比精神分析更加定位朝向真實界的核心。

I
Where do we meet this real? For what we have in the discovery of psycho-analysis is an encounter, an essential encounter—an appointment to which we are always called with a real that eludes us. That is why I have put on the blackboard a few words that are for us, today, a reference-point of what we wish to propose.

我們會在哪里會見真實界呢？在精神分析的發現，我們所擁有的東西是一種邂逅，一種重要的邂逅—我們總是被召喚跟跟我們閃躲的真實界的一種約會。那就是為什麼我在黑板寫上幾個字。今天，這幾個字對於我們是我們建議的指稱點。

First, the tuché, which we have borrowed, as I told you last time, from Aristotle, who uses it in his search for cause. We have translated it as the encounter with the real. The real is beyond the automaton, the return, the coming-back, the insistence of the signs, by which we see ourselves governed by the pleasure principle.

首先，中斷，這個我們從業力斯多德借用的詞，如同我上一次告訴你們，他使用它，在對於原因地追求。我們曾經翻譯它，作為跟真實界的邂逅。真實界超越自動機制，回轉，回來，及跡象的堅持。使用這個術語，我們看到我們自己受到快樂原則的支配。

The real is that which always lies behind the automaton, and it is quite obvious, throughout Freud’s research, that it is this that is the object of his concern.

真實界總是超越於自動機制。這是顯而易見的，在佛洛伊德的整個研究裏，這個才是他的關心的客體。

If you wish to understand what is Freud’s preoccupation as the function of phantasy is revealed to him, remember the development, which is so central for us, of the Wolf Man. He applies himself; in a way that can almost be described as anguish,
to the question—what is the first encounter, the real, that lies behind the phantasy?

假如你們希望瞭解，佛洛伊德的專注於被顯示給他的幻見的功用，請記住「狼人」的發展，這對我們是中心要點。他致力於這個問題，我們幾乎可描述為欲罷不能的程度。位於幻見背後的這個真實界，第一次的邂逅是什麼？

We feel that throughout this analysis, this real brings with it the subject, almost by force, so directing the research that, after all, we can today ask ourselves whether this fever, this presence, this desire of Freud is not that which, in his patient, might have conditioned the belated accident of his psychosis.

我們感覺到，在這整個精神分析過程，真實界帶來生命主體以俱來，幾乎是用強制力。所以引導這個研究，畢竟，我們今天能夠詢問我們自己，是否這個狂熱，佛洛伊德欲望的這個存在，若是發生在他病人身上，難道不是構成他的精神病的晚期發作？

So there is no question of confusing with repetition either the return of the signs, or reproduction, or the modulation by the act of a sort of acted out remembering. Repetition is something which, of its true nature, is always veiled in analysis, because of the identification of with the transference in the conceptualization of an analysis. Now, this really is the point at which a distinction should be made.

所以，問題不是混淆重複跟跡象的回轉，或是複製，或是某種激情演出的記憶的行動的調整。重複在它真實的性質上，是某件在精神分析總是被遮蔽的東西。因為在精神分析的觀念上，對於移情的認同。現在，這才是區別應該做的重點。

The relation to the real that is to be found in the transference was expressed by Freud when he declared that nothing can be apprehended in effigie, in absentia—and yet is not the transference given to us as effigy and as relation to absence? We can succeed
in unravelling this ambiguity of the reality involved in the transference only on the basis of the function of the real in repetition.

在移情時能夠被找到的跟真實界的關係，被佛洛伊德表達，當他宣佈，在人頭像，在代理物，沒有一樣東西能夠被理解—這難道不是移情被給予我們，作為人頭像或代理物？我們能夠成功地解開牽涉到移情的現實界的曖昧，只有根據真實界在重複的功用的基礎。

What is repeated, in fact, is always something that occurs —the expression tells us quite a lot about its relation to the tuché—as if by chance. This is something that we analysts never allow ourselves to be taken in by, on principle. At least, we always point out that we must not be taken in when the subject tells us that something happened to him that day that prevented him from realizing his wish to come to the session.

事實上，重複的東西總是某件發生的事情—這個表達告訴我們很多關於它跟「中斷」的關係—好似它是偶然發生。原則上，這是某件我們精神分析師，永遠不會讓自己被欺騙的東西。至少，我們總是指出，我們一定不要被欺騙，當生命主體告訴我們，某件事情那天發生在他身上，使他無法實現他前來接受諮商的願望。

Things must not be taken at the level at which the subject puts them—in as much as what we are dealing with is precisely this obstacle, this hitch, that we find at every moment. It is this mode of apprehension above all that governs the new deciphering that we have given of the subject’s relations to that which makes his condition.

事情必須被從事，從生命主體擺置它們的層次—我們正在處理的，確實就是這個阻礙，這個障礙，我們隨時會發現的。尤其是這個理解的模式，支配著我們給予的新的詮釋，對於生命主體與構成他的情況內涵的關係•。

The function of the tuché, of the real as encounter—the encounter in so far as it may be missed, in so far as it is essentially the missed encounter—first presented itself in the history of psycho-analysis in a form that was in itself already enough to arouse our attention, that of the trauma.

這個「中斷」，這個真實界作為邂逅的功用—這個邂逅可能會被錯過，因為它基本上是被錯過的邂逅—首先呈現它自己，在精神分析的歷史，採取的形式本身就已經足夠喚醒我們的注意，那是創傷的形式。

Is it not remarkable that, at the origin of the analytic experience, the real should have presented itself in the form of that which is unassimilable in it—in the form of the trauma, determining all that follows, and imposing on it an apparently accidental origin?

這難道不是耐人尋味嗎？在精神分析的起源，真實界本來應該呈現它自己，採取無法被吸收的方式，採取創傷的方式，決定所有一切後來的東西，並且賦加一個顯然是意外的起源在上面？

We are now at the heart of what may enable us to understand the radical character of the conflictual notion introduced by the opposition of the pleasure principle and the reality principle—which is why we cannot conceive the reality principle as having, by virtue of its ascendancy, the last word.

我們現在處於這個核心，讓我們能夠瞭解，由快樂原則與現實原則的對立，介紹的衝突的觀念的積極特性—這就是為什麼我們無法構想現實原則，憑藉它的得勢，就作為最終的定論。

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

精神分析四個基本觀念 403

Concept 403

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
2
This brings us to the heart of the problem that I am raising. Is psycho-analysis, here and now, a science? What distinguishes modern science from science in its infancy, which is discussed in the Theaetetus, is that, when science arises, a master is always
present. Freud is certainly a master.

這帶我們來到我提出的問題的核心。精神分析，此地此刻，是一門科學嗎？是什麼區別現代科學于發展初期的科學？後者在柏拉圖對話錄的「泰阿泰德」章被討論，當科學出現時，大師總是在場。佛洛伊德確實是一位大師。

But if everything that is written as analytic literature is not mere buffoonery, it always
functions as such—which poses the question as to whether this pedicle might, one day, be reduced.

但是假如被書寫為精神分析文獻的一切，不僅是詼諧笑談，它總是具有本身的功用—它提出這個問題，關於是否這個根莖有一天會發展。

Opposite his certainty, there is the subject, who, as I said just now, has been waiting there since Descartes. I dare to state as a truth that the Freudian field was possible only a certain time after the emergence of the Cartesian subject, in so far as
modern science began only after Descartes made his inaugural step.

相對於他的確定性，有這個生命主體，如我剛才所說的，自從笛卡爾以來，一直在那裏等待。我膽敢陳述它，作為真理。在笛卡爾的生命主體出現後，只有某段時間，佛洛伊德的領域是有這個可能。因為現代科學只有在笛卡爾最初出現後，才開始。

It is on this step that depends the fact that one can call upon the subject to re-enter himself in the unconscious—for, after all, it is important to know who one is calling. It is not the soul, either mortal or immortal, which has been with us for so long,
nor some shade, some double, some phantom, nor even some supposed psycho-spherical shell, the locus of the defences and other such simplified notions. It is the subject who is called— there is only he, therefore, who can be chosen.

這個事實就依靠這一步，我們能夠召喚生命主體重新進入無意識—因為，畢竟，要知道是誰在召喚是很重要的。這並不是長久跟我們同在的靈魂，無論是人類或神的靈魂，也不是幽靈，某個雙重人，某個魅影，更不是某個被認為是精神的球狀外殼，防衛的軌跡，以及其他簡化的觀念。這是被召喚的生命主體—因此，只有它才能夠被選擇。

There may be, as in the parable, many called and few chosen, but there will
certainly not be any others except those who are called.

如同在寓言，很多人被召喚，少數人被選擇。但是除了被召喚的人之外，確實沒有任何其他人被選擇

In order to understand the Freudian concepts, one must set out on the basis that it is the subject who is called—the subject of Cartesian origin. This basis gives its true function to what, in analysis, is called recollection or remembering.

為了瞭解佛洛伊德的觀念，我們必須根據這個基礎出發，是生命主體被召喚—笛卡爾「我思故我在」的生命主體。這個基礎給予它真實的功用，給在精神分析所謂的回憶或記憶。

Recollection is not Platonic reminiscence —it is not the return of a form, an imprint, a eidos of beauty and good, a supreme truth, coming to us from the beyond.

回憶並不是柏拉圖的回想—它並不是一種形式的回來，一種印記，一種美與善的「互動」，一種崇高的真理，從超越那邊來到我們這裏。

It is something that comes to us from the structural necessities, something humble, born at the level of the lowest encounters and of all the talking crowd that precedes us, at the level of the structure of the signifier, of the languages spoken in a stuttering, stumbling way, but which cannot elude constraints whose echoes, model, style can be found, curiously enough, in contemporary mathematics.

這個東西從結構的必需性來到我們這裏，這個卑陋的東西，誕生於最低點遭遇的層次，及我們之前的談話俗眾的層次，處於能指的結構的層次，結結巴巴，又喋喋不休的口語的層次。它無法逃避約束，耐人尋味的是，在現代數學裏，這些約束的迴響，模式與風格能夠被發現到。

As you saw with the notion of cross-checking, the function of return, Wiederkehr, is essential. It is not only Wiederkelir in the sense of that which has been repressed—the very constitution of the field of the unconscious is based on the Wiederkehr. It is
there that Freud bases his certainty.

當你們用反復檢查的觀念看到，回轉的功用是非常重要。不僅是回轉的功用，從被壓抑的意義來說，無意識的領域的建構是以回轉作為基礎。佛洛伊德就將他的確定性，建立在那裏。

But it is quite obvious that it is not from there that it comes to him. It comes to him from the fact that he recognizes the law of his own desire. He would not have been able to advance with this bet of certainty if he had not been guided in it, as his writings show, by his self-analysis.

但是顯而易見的，無意識並不是從那裏來到他身上。它來到他身上，是從這個事實：他體認出他自己欲望的法則。他本來無法帶著確定性的賭注前進，假如他當時沒有被引導，被他的自我分析引導，如同他的寫作所顯示的。

And what is his self-analysis, if not the brilliant mapping of the law of desire suspended in the Name-of-the-father. Freud advances, sustained by a certain relation to his desire, and by his own achievement, namely, the constitution of psychoanalysis.

他的自我分析是什麼呢？難道不就是以父親之名，懸置的欲望的法則的傑出的描繪？憑藉跟他的欲望的某種關係及他自己的成就的支持，佛洛伊德繼續從事精神分析學。的建構

I shall not elaborate much more, though I always hesitate to leave this terrain. If I have insisted on it, it is to show you that the notion of hallucination, in Freud, as a process of regressive investment on perception necessarily implies that the subject
must be completely subverted in it—which he is, in effect, only in extremely fleeting moments.

我將不再多作詳細解說，雖然我總是猶豫要離開這個平臺。假如我曾經堅持這個平臺，那是為了要跟你們顯示：幻覺的觀念，在佛洛伊德身上，作為一種對於感官的倒退投注的過程，它必然暗示著：生命主體一定是在裏面被顛覆—實際上，他在那裏，僅是極端短促的時間。

No doubt this leaves entirely open the question of hallucination proper, in which the subject does not believe, and in which he does not recognize himself as implicated. No doubt this is merely a mythical pin-pointing—for it is not certain that one
can speak of the delusion of hallucinatory psychosis of a confusional origin, as Freud does, rather too rapidly, seeing in it the manifestation of the perceptual regression of arrested desire.

無可置疑，這將幻覺的本體的問題完全暴露無遺。在幻覺本體裏，生命主體並不相信，在那裏，他並沒有體認出他自己，作為參與的一份子。無可置疑的，這僅是一種神秘的準確認定—因為我們並不確定，我們能夠談論屬於混亂起源的幻想症精神病的幻覺，如同佛洛伊德所為，相當匆促地，因為他在裏面看到欲望被阻礙引起感官的倒退的展示。

But the fact that there is a mode in which Freud can conceive as possible the subversion of the subject shows clearly enough to what extent he identifies the subject with that which is originally subverted by the system of the signifier.

有一個模式，在裏面，佛洛伊德能夠構想生命主體的顛覆是可能的。這個事實足夠清楚地顯示，他將生命主體認同于原先被能指的系統顛覆的主體。

So let us leave this time of the unconscious and move towards the question of what repetition is. It will need more than one of our sessions.

所以，讓我們這一次，留下無意識的問題，前往探討重複是什麼的問題。這將需要更多的一節演講會。

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