自闭症与童年精神错乱 02

自闭症与童年精神错乱02
Autism and Childhood Psychosis 21

Lacan always insisted on the notion of the psychotic phenomenon as a production, a view taken already by Freud since the beginnings of psychoanalysis and the best example of which is Freud’s analysis of President Schreber’s psychotic productions.

拉康总是坚持精神错乱的现象作为产物的观念，这一个观点已经被弗洛伊德採纳，自从精神分析的开始。最好的例子是弗洛伊德对于苏瑞伯首席法官这个精神错乱的产物的分析。

A clinic of production, as opposed to a clinic of the deficit, necessarily requires a structural approach and a positive explanation for clinical phenomena which, in turn, is indispensable for any therapeutic intervention. A clinic of the deficit is content with verifying the presence of malfunction or disorder, and not interested in the order which exists, since psychosis is one of the possible organizations of the speaking being, including the cases in which the subject does not actually speak (catatonia, autistic mutism). Even in such cases the subject is subjected to language and, for instance, the absence of verbal productions is interpreted by those around the subject as a refusal to speak, rather than as an absolute inability to speak.

产物的临床，相对于这个缺陷的临床，必然会要求一种结构性的研究方法，及正面的解释，对于临床的各种现象。轮过来，对于任何治疗的介入，是无可免除的。缺陷的临床满足于证实功能不良或疾病的存在，并且对于存在的秩序不感興趣，因为精神错乱是作为言说主体的可能组织之一，包括这些情况，主体并没有实际在言说的情况（僵硬姿态，自闭症的沉默）。甚至在诸如其乐的情 ，主体还是隶属于语言，文辞产物的欠缺被环绕主体四周的那些人，解释为拒绝言说，而不是作为绝对没有言说的能力。

The following are the diagnostic categories generally accepted in the Freudian field, although there is no unanimity as to exact definitions:

以下是一些诊断的范畴，在弗洛伊德的领域普遍被接受，虽然关于确实的定义，并没有一致共识。

1. Paranoia, whose existence as one of the psychoses of childhood is maintained, contrary to the opinion of non-psychoanalytic psychiatry. Les structures de la psychose, by Rosine and Robert Lefort (1988), contains a full account of the treatment of Robert, the Wolf Child, and a detailed comparison of Robert’s and President Schreber’s clinical presentations, which has led the authors to assert the structural identity of both cases. Paranoiac psychosis manifests clinically through delusional formations and hallucinations which are the spontaneous attempts at recovery on the part of the patient, an attempt to reconstruct a world that has collapsed and where it has become impossible to live.

1、偏执狂的存在，作为儿童精神错乱的之一，是成立的，跟非精神分析的精神分裂学的意见相反。由罗欣尼与罗伯特、雷弗特所写的「精神错乱的结构」，包括充分的描述，关于罗伯特德治疗「狼孩」。详细地比较罗伯特与苏瑞伯首席法官的临床记载，引导作者们主张两个个案的结构的相同性。偏执狂的精神错乱的临床显示，通过谵妄的形成及各种幻觉。它们病人这方面自动自发的企图寻求康复。企图想要重建一个已经崩溃的世界。在这个世界，他已经变得不可能生存。

2. Schizophrenia, which manifests itself through fragmentary delusional formations and hallucinations; incoherence of speech and thought; blunted or bizarre affective responses and catatonic behaviour, all of which represent the subject’s attempts to deal with a collapse of the representation of the body, or inability to construct that representation in a relation with the small other, i(o), the body thus becoming a place almost impossible to inhabit.

2、精神分裂症展示它自己，通过片断的谵妄动形成与各种幻觉。言说与思想的不一致，迟钝或古怪的情感的反应，及身体僵化的行为。所有这一些代表主体的企图，想要处理身体的再现符号的崩溃。或是没有能力建造那个再现符号，跟这个小他者（io）的关系，身体因此变成一个几乎不可能居住地位置。

3. Melancholia, which has not received much attention but which appears during childhood, characterized by delusional feelings of worthlessness, insomnia or hypersomnia, poor appetite, failure to thrive, suicidal ideation and actions, and apathy (which may be interrupted by manic episodes). These phenomena represent an identification with the real lack in the Other, that is, the absence of the desire of the Other which remains as an unsymbolized nothingness, the locus of the suicidal identification. There remains an open question whether melancholia can be considered as a structure in its own right, or whether it is a variant of paranoia – and, in some cases, perhaps, of schizophrenia.

3、忧郁症，并没有受到许多的注意，但是在童年期间会出现，特色是谵妄的无价值感，失眠，或是严重失眠，食欲不佳，无法成功，自杀的念头及行动，冷漠（这些可能会被狂乱的发作中断）。这些现象代表一种认同大他者的这个欠缺。换句话说，大他者的欲望的欠缺。这个大他者始终是作为一种没有被符号象征的空无，自杀认同的轨迹。这始终是一个开放的问题，忧郁症是否能够被认为是一种具有自己价值的结构，或是这是一种偏执狂的变种—在某些的个案，或许是精神分裂症的变种。

4. Autism, for which Leo Kanner’s (1973) original description of 1943 remains valid, characterized by inability to relate socially, aloneness, the failure to assume an anticipatory posture, the profound disturbance of language, the presence of excellent rote memory in many cases, echolalia and delayed echolalia, literal-ness and the mechanical repetition of pronouns, with onset within the first thirty months after birth. Such clinical features suggest an absence of the Other as the locus of the representation of both the world and the body. There is no unanimity as to the specificity of autism: whether it constitutes a structure in its own right, separate from the psychoses; or whether it is a variation and the earliest clinical version of schizophrenia. Current research by Lacanians who work with autistic and psychotic children deals with this question and the related issue of the evolution of the autistic subject, that is, what becomes of the autistic child when he/she enters adulthood.

1、 自闭症，李奥、康纳在1943年，对它的原先描述始终是有效。它的特征是没有能力跟社会联系，孤单，没有办法负起一种期望的姿态，语言深深受到困扰，优秀的背诵记忆，在许多情况存在，机械地重复他人语言或拖延重复他人语言，对于一些代名词实质认定及机械重复，在出生后前三十个月内开始。诸如其类的临床特征暗示大他者的欠缺，作为世界及身体的符号再现的轨迹。并没有一致共识，关于自闭症的明确内涵：它是否构成一种具有本身价值的结构，跟精神错乱分隔开来。或是它是否是一种变种及精神分裂症的早期临床变种。目前拉康派探讨自闭症及精神错乱儿童的研究，处理这个问题，及自闭症主体的进化的相关问题。换句话说，自闭症儿童的遭遇，他/她何时进入成年。

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

自闭症与儿童精错乱

Autism and Childhood Psychosis
自闭症与童年的精神错乱

Specific references to autism and the psychoses of childhood in Lacan’s written works and seminars are scarce. Yet his theses on the structure of psychosis (see foreclosure; psychosis), have enlightened the clinical approach to those conditions and generated a wealth of research, theoretical developments and debate among psychoanalysts of the Lacanian orientation who work with children.

明确的提到自闭症与童年的精神错乱，在拉康的文字著作及研讨班，是很少的。可是，他对于精神错乱的结构的论文曾经启蒙探究那些情况的临床方法，并且产生许多的研究，理论的发展与辩论，在研究儿童的拉康派的精神分析家。

The topic is, however, of relevance for the theory and practice of all Lacanian analysts, as the psychoanalytic field is one, and interest in particular clinical or conceptual problems should not be understood as being the domain of only ‘specialized’ forms of psychoanalysis. Whether autistic, psychotic or neurotic, it is as a subject that the child (or the adult, for that matter) enters the psychoanalytic experience.

可是，这个议题跟所有的拉康派的精神分析家的理论与实践都息息相关，如同精神分析的领域。对它的興趣，特别是临床或是观念的问题，不应该被了解，仅是当著述精神分析的「专业」形式的领域。无论是自闭症，精神错乱，或是神经症，儿童（就那个情况，是成人），进入精神分析的经验，是作为一个主体。

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the child works in this experience as a subject in his/her own right and in the full sense of the term; this is so despite the fact that the psychotic or autistic subject is outside discourse (hors discours) and cannot therefore be considered to be a ‘subject of the unconscious’ constituted by the operations of alienation and separation. It is still the aim of the psychoanalytic experience that the psychotic or autistic subject establish a ‘workable’ link with discourse.

在拉康的精神分析，儿童在这个经验里，充当是主体，拥有他/她自己的权利，就那个术语的完整意义而言。这是如此，尽管这个事实： 精神错乱或是自闭症的主体，外在于辞说之外，并且因此无法被认为是一个「无意识的主体」，由异化与分离的各种运作所组成。这依旧是精神分析经验的目标，精神错乱或是自闭症的主体应该建立一个跟辞说「可运作的」的关联。

Within Lacan’s works, the main references that have inspired the psychoanalysts who work with psychotic and autistic children (leaving aside for the moment the distinction between the two terms) are:
• The doctoral thesis on paranoia (1932).
• The article on the family published in the Encyclopédie française (1938).
• The commentaries on the cases of Dick (treated by Melanie Klein; Klein 1930) and Robert (treated by Rosine Lefort; Lefort and Lefort 1988). Both are part of the 1953-54 seminar, or Seminar I.

在拉康的著作里，曾经启发精神分析家的主要的指称如下，他们研究精神错乱及自闭症儿童（暂时将这两个术语的区别搁置）：
1、 对于偏执狂的博士论文 （1932）
2、 论家庭的文章，发表于法国百科全书（1938）
3、 有关个案的评论，对于笛克（梅兰妮、克莱恩所治疗：克莱恩，1930年）及罗伯特（由罗欣尼所治疗：雷弗特1988年）。两个个案都是1953-54的研讨班的部分，或是第一研讨班。

雄伯说
罗伯特的个案，就是双臂大黑天翻译一半的「狼孩」，请参照。

• The seminar on the psychoses of 1955-56.
• The now ‘classical’ 1959 paper on the treatment of psychosis included in the English-language selection of the Écrits (1977).
• The intervention at the conference on childhood psychosis organized by Maud Mannoni (1968).
• The note on the child addressed to Jenny Aubry (1969).
• The revision of the concept of the Name-of-the-Father and the function of the symptom developed in the seminars of 1974-75 (R.S.I.) and 1975-76 (Le Sinthome).
• The 1975 Geneva lecture on the symptom.

4、1955-1956 年的精神错乱的研讨班。
5、1959年的论精神错乱的治疗，现在已成经典，在精神分析论文集的英文版收入（1977年）
6、对于儿童精神错乱的会议的介入，这个会议由莫德、曼诺尼主办（1968年）
7、跟珍妮、奥布瑞演讲的儿童观察（1968年）
8、1974-75年的（R.S.I）及1975年-76（圣庄），以「父亲之名」的观念的订正，及发展的病征的功用。
9、 1975年，在日内瓦演讲病正。

Diagnosis
The first question that faces the practitioners in the field, both of practical and conceptual significance, is that of diagnosis which, from a Lacanian perspective is necessarily structural.
In his seminar on the psychoses, Lacan speaks of ‘the structure of the psychotic phenomenon’: the observable phenomena are moments of the structure, rather than epiphenomena.
From a clinical perspective, ‘observable’ phenomena are not perceived unless the clinician’s conceptual mapping is prepared to admit them; and this requires structural hypotheses.

诊断
在这个领域实践者面临的第一个问题，兼具实践与观念的重要性，那就是诊断的问题。从拉康派的观点，它必然是结构的问题。

在他论精神错乱的研讨班，拉康谈论精神错乱的现象的结构：可观察到现象是结构的时刻，而不是次要现象。

从临床观点，「可观察的」现象没有被感觉，除非临床医生的观念的描绘准备要承认它们，而这需要结构的假设。

In the Lacanian orientation, childhood and adult psychoses are identical from the viewpoint of their structure; this position contrasts with the view adopted by the authors of current psychiatric classifications. In making of psychosis a developmental disorder, what the psychiatric orientation represented by the D5M-IV causes is, in the first place, to consider the psychotic phenomenon as a deficit, rather than a production; and secondly, to define the deficits of the patient in terms of developmental norms external to the structure of the subject as such.

依拉康派的研究方向，儿童与成人的精神错乱是一致的，从他们的结构的观点。这个立场可跟目前的精神分裂疾病的分类的作者们所採用的观点互相对照。他们将精神错乱解释为成长发展的疾病，精神分裂疾病的研究方向，由D5M-IV列举的目标所代表。它首先要将精神错乱的现象，作为一种缺陷，而不是一种产物。其次，他们定义病人的缺陷，用成长发展的标准，外在于主体本身的结构。

Diagnosis is thus established on the basis of what the subject has not achieved developmentally and his/her deviation from norms which combine medical and educational criteria, adaptation to conventional social demands being the central point of reference. This is a questionable criterion for clinical phenomenology, since the emphasis is placed on what is absent and not on what is phenomenologically observable, which is a production.

诊断因此被建立，根据主体在成长发展没有达成的东西。他/她偏离这个标准，这些标准联接医学与教育的标准，对于传统的社会要求的适应，成为指称的重点。这是一个受到质疑的标准，对于临床的现象学。因为强调被放置在所欠缺的东西，而不是在现象上可观察的东西。这是一种产物。

Object 23

Object 23

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

Must one see again here a striking feature of Judaism in the silence that it maintains
about the after-life? The two facts are perhaps linked. But in order to understand the
logic of the effacing of the trace, perhaps it will be necessary to have recourse to other
spatio-temporal categories than the ones that we know.

在此，我们必须要看出犹太教的一个引人注意的特征，在它维持的这个沉默，对于死后的生命。这两个事实或许有关联。但是为了了解痕迹的被抹除的逻辑，或许这将是需要的，诉诸于其他的空间与时间的范畴，除了我们知道的范畴之外。

Perhaps it will be necessary to find here the structures of a time and a space only the pre-Socratics were able to reveal to us, directly or through the analyses of Vernant and Beaufret, the two in a very different way, but where we are surprised to note that the analytic treatment furnishes us with a privileged access to this time and space, these places and this memory in the sense of the Greeks.

或许这将是需要的，在此发现时间及空间的结构，仅是苏格拉底之前时期所能够跟我们显示的，直接或通过范南特与毕弗瑞特的分析，这两个人的方式并不一样，但是我们很惊奇地注意到，精神分析的治疗供应我们一种特权的接近这个时间与空间，这些位置与希腊人的意义来理解的这个记忆。

The (o) is revealed under the structures of nosography as an episemantic organisation
and under the modes of the analysand‟s discourse in its semantophoric aspect. The
analysts here have to pass through a narrow gate. The approach to a structural
psychoanalytic technique appears to me to have to be based on the differentiation
between representatives and affect and on the differential distribution of
representatives.

这个客体被显示，在病历描述的结构之下，及分析者的论述，在它的载讯息的层面的模式下，作为认识的组织。在此的分析家必须通过一道狭窄的门。我觉得，结构精神分析技巧的方法，必须被以冲动再现与情感之间的差异，以及冲动再现的不同分配为基础。

One is extremely stuck in reading works on psychoanalytic technique to note the total
absence about anything which concerns the modes of discourse of the analysand.
Nevertheless we all know the considerable difficulty of treatments which do not
conform to the model established by Freud of free association. What is most often
lacking is this differential distribution of modes of representation which bear witness
to the non-identity to itself of the signifier as a necessary condition of analysis. I am
only noting this point as a possible field of research without being able to dwell on it
any longer.

当我们阅读精神分析技巧时，我们极端陷住，因为注意这个全部的欠缺，关于任何关系到分析者的论述的模式。可是，我们都知道治疗遭遇的巨大困难。这些治疗并没有符合弗洛伊德的自由联想建立的模式。最为欠缺的是冲动再现的模式的这个差异的分配，它们见证到能指对于它自己的非认同，作为一种必须要的精神分析情况。我仅是注意到这一点，作为一个可能的研究领域，而不再能够详述它。

The essential difficulty of psychoanalytic investigation comes from the fact that it is a
constrained discourse : it is not simply a question of communicating but for the
analysand to say everything. On the side of the analyst, it is a fleeting word – verba
volant – that he is not able like the linguist or the ethnologist to lock up in a box. The
analyst runs after the word of the analysand.

精神分析研究的基本困难来自这个事实： 这是一种受到约束的论述。这不仅是沟通的问题，而且是对于分析者要说出一切的问题。在分析家这一边，这是一个瞬间的字词。他并不能够像语言学家或是人种学家封闭在一个盒子里。分析家追逐分析者的字词。

If the death drive infiltrates the word of the analysand, in the silence towards which it always pushes him, the analyst has to deal with a living word; living in its refusal to be reduced to silence, living in its character which is refractory to all embalming where the text finally conditioned lends itself to all the treatments to which men of knowledge submit it.

假如死亡冲动在沉默当中，渗透分析者的字词，它总是逼迫他朝向沉默。分析家必须处理一个活生生的字词，由于它拒绝被沦落为沉默，生活在被折射在各种僵化的字词的文字里。在那里，最后被制约的文本，有助于知识人将它提供给所有的治疗。

We will know precisely what the (o) is when we have gone completely round the field
of subjective positions. We will then have a vision which corresponds to that of the
philosopher who thinks about history and culture through the modes of discovery of
the movement of ideas, of art, of the science of his time but as a polymorphous,
heterogeneous milieu where there are illustrated different forms of alienation. One
should however not be deceived.

我们将会确实地知道，这个客体是什么，当我们完全环绕过主观性立场的领域。我们因此将会拥有一种见识，对应于哲学家的见识。他们思考历史及文化，通过他当代的观念，艺术，科学的活动的发现，但是作为一种多样形态，异质性的环境。在那里，不同的异化的形态被说明。可是，我们不应该被欺骗。

The psychoanalyst here is not disposed to abandon his priority to anyone in the examination of these facts. Even though he may be taxed with imperialism, he will always remain arrested before this affirmation by Freud that the religions of humanity represent obsessional systems, just as the different philosophies represent paranoiac systems.

在此，在这些事实的检视过程，精神分析并不倾向于放弃他的优先于任何其他人。即使他可能受到帝国主义的侵犯，他总是被弗洛伊德的这个肯定被吸引： 人类的各种宗教代表妄想症的系统，正如不同的哲学代表偏执狂的系统。

The one and the other are valorised in so far as they allow the subject to feel better, says Freud, by having thus escaped desire and succeeding in installing something else in its place. And we would have here, in the order of the projections of the functioning of the psyche, the first elements of a conception or of a mimetic theory of the functioning of the subject. Psychoanalysis has not yet exhausted the resources of mimesis.

前者与后者都被推崇，因为它们容许主体感觉更好，弗洛伊德说。他因此逃避欲望，并且成功地安置某件其他的东西代替它。在此，在精神的功用的投射的秩序，我们将会拥有感觉到最初元素，或是主体的功用的模拟理论的最初元素。精神分析还没有穷尽模拟的这些资源。

It is insufficient to attribute to the psychoanalyst the function of demystification which would allow there to be preserved a purged and purified cogito. It is in fact because Freud begins from what is slag, waste, mistake, that he discovers the structure of the subject as a relationship to the truth. This is perhaps less close to the image of
Prometheus hunted for having stolen fire and than to that of Philoctetes abandoned by
his own on a desert island because of his stinking wound.

光是将除掉神秘化的功用归属给精神分析家，是不足够的，虽然这种除掉神秘化的功用容许一种清洗及净化的认知被保存。事实上，因为弗洛伊德就是从残屑，废料，错误开始。他发现到主体的结构，作为跟真理的关系。这或许比较不像是靠近被追逐的普罗米修斯，因为盗火给人类的意象。倒是比较像菲洛忒提思，他将自己放逐到荒岛，因为他的恶臭的身体创伤。

Dr Lacan: I want to thank Green very warmly for the admirable presentation that he
has just made to us on his position with respect to what I, as he recalled, patiently put
forward, constructed, produced and what I have not finished producing concerning the
o-object. He really showed very remarkably all the connections that this notion
involves. I would even say that he even left in the margin something he could have
taken further, I know, and specifically as regards the organisation of different types of
treatment and what constitutes properly speaking the function of the o-object as
regards the treatment.

拉康： 我想要深深感谢格林，因为他刚刚跟我所做的精彩演讲，有关他的立场，如他所说的，对于我耐心提出，建构，及产生的问题，以及我未完全产生的问题，关于这个客体。他确实很精彩地显示这个观念牵涉到各种的关联。我甚至要说，他甚至在边缘留下某件东西，他本来能够进一步探究的东西。我知道，很明确地，关于不同种类的治疗的组织，以及适当来说，组成这个客体作为治疗的功用。

I thank him for having given this clarification which is much more than a summary,
which is a genuine animating, an excellent reminder of different stages, I repeat, in
which one could specify my research or my discoveries.

我感谢他，因为曾经给予这个澄清，而不仅是一种总结，这是真诚的激励，优秀地提醒不同的阶段，我重复，在这些不同的阶段，我们能够指明我的研究或我的发现。

I will not answer him now because we have a programme. I think that he will be prepared to collaborate in the closest possible fashion with what has been put together in order that the text of what he gave to day and which marks a date and which can serve as a reference for what will be developed and I hope completed or increased this year, I think that it is an excellent work-base especially for those who will form part of this closed seminar.

我将不会现在回答他，因为我 们另有行程。我认为他将会准备以最亲密的方式，跟所被提出的问题合作，为了让他今天提出的这个文本，它标示一个日期，也充当一种指称，因为所被发展的东西。我希望在今年，它们将会被完成或增加。我认为，这是一个优秀的工作团队，特别对于那些将会形成这个圈内的研讨班的部分成员。

(28) Thank you very much, Green. You have filled your hour with an exactness that I
cannot compliment you on too much. So then. I give the floor to Conté who is going
to propose a certain presentation about what is involved in the articles by Stein that
are going to be questioned today. Nevertheless, I take advantage of the interval to let
you know the following, which is that a study and work circle which is called the
epistemology circle and which belongs to this school whose guests we are here, this
epistemology circle has been constituted in the course of the cartel: theory of the
discourse of the Ecole Freudienne and is going to publish Cahiers pour l’analyse.

非常感谢你，格林。你已经以精确的讲演充实这个小时，我无论如何赞赏也不为过。因此，我请孔德先生上台，他将建议某个演讲，关于史坦因的那些文章所牵涉的东西。那些文章今天将会受到质疑。可是，我利用空档时间让你们知道以下。一个被称为是认识论的学识圈的研究范围。他们属于我们在此作客的这个学派。这个认识论学识圈曾经被形成，从事「行会」的论述：艾可、弗洛伊底尼的论述的理论，它将出版「结构主体与精神分析杂志」。

The very title of these cahiers requires no further commentary. But I will give you all
the same its direction and what it is open to, what it may possibly welcome. These
cahiers will be put at your disposal of course here at the entrance to the seminar but at
the Ecole Normale in a permanent fashion and also at the Sorbonne in a place that I
will designate for you later. I gave to these cahiers, which appear to me to be
animated by the most fruitful spirit and this for a long time, I mean that the circle
which is going to edit them appears to me to merit the attention of all of us, I gave my
first lecture this year which as you saw was written out, so that it could be published
in the first number. There will be other things. So you will see.

这个杂志的标题并没有需要更进一步地评论。但是我仍然将给予你们它的方针，它们要探究的东西，以及它们欢迎的东西。在研讨班的入口处，在此有这些杂志可供你们取拿。但是在艾可学院及我以后将会跟你们指明的索伯尼学院，永远都可拿到。我跟这个杂志的那些成员举行研讨班，我觉得我长久以来，就受到那些热烈求知的心灵的激励。我的意思是，我觉得，将要编辑杂志的那些圈内成员，应该获得我们的关注。今年我发表我的首次演讲，你们看到，已经被书写出来，所以它能够被出版在第一期。还有其他东西，你们将会看到。

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

Object 22

Object 22

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

IV – IDENTITY AND NON-IDENTITYTO ONESELF: THE DEATH DRIVE

IV. 认同与非认同自己：死亡冲动

The signifier reveals the subject while effacing its trace, says Lacan. It is here, I
believe, that there is situated the divorce with all non-psychoanalytic structuralist
thinking: in the visible/invisible opposition, in the perceived/ known opposition, we
bring into play the order of truth, but in so far as this truth always passes by way of the problem of the effacing of the trace.

能指显示主体，当它抹除它的痕迹，拉康说。 就在这里，我相信，这这个分离被定位在这里，跟一切所有非精神分析的结构主义，他们以可见与不可见的对立，及可感觉与可知道的对立等方式来思考。我们运作真理的这个秩序，但是因为这个真理总是凭借抹除痕迹的问题来通过。

Freud says in Moses and monotheism (1938): “In its consequences, the distortion of a
text is like a murder, the difficulty is not to commit the act but to get rid of its traces”.
Now, it is this process which, starting from traces, makes it possible to go back to
their cause in which we find the very process of paternity.

弗洛伊德在1938年的「摩西与一神教」说到：「在它的结果，对于文本的扭曲就像谋杀。困难之处不在于犯下这个罪行，而是要抹除它的痕迹。」现在，就是这个过程，从各种痕迹开始，让我们回溯它们的原因成为可能。在这个原因里，我们发现父权的这个过程。

In Moses and monotheism, again, taking up a remark already made at the time of the Ratman, he recalls that maternity is revealed by the senses while paternity is a conjecture based on deductions and hypotheses. The fact of having thus given priority to cogitative processes over sensorial perception “was heavy with consequences for humanity”.

而且，在「摩西与一神教」，从事一种在「鼠人」的时候已经开始的谈论，弗洛伊德提醒： 虽然父权是一种根据推论及假设的推想，母权则是凭借感官而显示出来。因此将认知的过程，给予优先顺序，超过感官的感觉，对于人类而言，这个事实形成各种的结果。

I point out here that if Freud established a very close link between the phallus and
castration, between sexual curiosity and procreation, it seems curious to me that he
never in an explicit fashion related the role of the phallus in procreation, in the child‟s
desire for a child or in sexual curiosity.

我在此指出，假如弗洛伊德建立一个紧密的关联，处于阳具与阉割之间，处于性的好奇与繁殖后代之间，我觉得耐人寻味的是，他从来没有以一种明确的方式，描述阳具在繁殖后代，在小孩的欲望小孩，或是在性的好奇，扮演的角色。

What functions as cause in the subject (in the search for truth in so far as it is a
question of origins, a relationship to the begetter) functions as Law at the socio-anthropological level. Here also the combinatorial only comes into action through the compulsion of a rule.

作为主体的原因，发挥功用的东西，（ 在对于真理的追求，因为这是起源的问题，跟父亲的关系），在社会与人类学的层次，发挥功用，作为法则。在此，这个组合也仅是通过一种规则的驱动，才开始运作。

To the prohibition of incest, the interdiction to the sight and to the knowledge of all
which removes the mother and the sister from choice in order to designate other
objects in their place, there is added the funeral ritual which establishes the presence
of the absent one, of the dead Father.

对于乱伦的禁忌，禁止看见及知道一切将母亲与姐妹从选择移除掉的事情，为了指明其他客体代替他们，这个葬礼仪式被增加，这个葬礼仪式建立这个缺席者的存在，死去的父亲的存在。

A double process, let us note, of cutting and of suturing. Among the living, a cutting off of the mother and a suturing by her substitutes, among the dead a suturing of the disappearance of the father by the ritual or the totem which is consecrated to him, a cutting off from him through the inaccessible beyond where he henceforth holds himself.

让我们注意到切割与缝合的双重过程。在生者当中，母亲的被切割，然后以她的代用品缝合。而在死者当中，用奉献给他的仪式与图腾，让父亲消失的缝合，然后通过这个不可接近界，跟他切割，他因此在这个不可接近界，拥有他自己。

We have here a striking example of the cut between Lévi-Strauss and Freud which is
illustrated in an unexpected encounter.

我们在此有一个生动的这个切割的例子，处于列文、史特劳斯与弗洛伊德之间的这个切割，从用不期而遇来说明。

In connection with the mask Lévi-Strauss insists on its function as being at once
negative (of dissimulation) and positive (the accession to another world). But what
seems to be involved for him is a homology, a correspondence such that in this twofaced reality nothing is in any way lost on the way. One might pose the question :

关于这个面具，列文、史特劳斯坚持它的功用，作为既是（属于欺骗的）负面，又是（进入另外一个世界的）的正面。但是对于他而言，似乎被牵涉的东西，是一种同质性，一种一致性，以致于在这个两面脸孔的现实界，在途中，没有一样东西丧失。我们可以提出这个问题：

“What is it that necessitates dissimulation, what is it that requires this two-planed
structure?”

是什么让欺骗成为必需要？是什么要求这个结构要具有两个层面？

Lévi-Strauss speaks about a mask (Hamshamtses) among the Kwakiutl Indians made
up of several articulated shutters which allows there to be unveiled, to be “unmasked”
(sic) the human face of a God hidden under the outer form of a crow. We are in
agreement with him in concluding “that one masks not in order to suggest, but finally
in order to unveil”, now when this mask is deployed it makes appear the human face
in what could be taken to be the back of crow‟s throat.

列文、史特劳斯谈论到，科瓦丘族的印度人用好几层连接的帘幕制成的一种面具，隐藏在乌鸦的外在形状之下，容许神祗的人类脸孔被揭露，被揭开「面具」。我们同样他的这个结论： 「我们用面具遮蔽，不是为了暗示，而是最后为了揭露。」现在，当这个面具被运用时，它让人类的脸孔出现，，以被人认为是乌鸦的喉咙的背后。

We do not have to force the facts very much to say that the figure presented here makes there appear the four semi-halves of the beak (two upper ones and two lower ones) as the four members of a character whose trunk is represented by the face of a God. The analogy between this representation and the one Freud notes in an extremely short text – A mythological parallel to a visual obsession – is striking. He describes in it an obsessional representation which haunts the patient under the name Vater Arsch in which there is imagined a character constituted by a trunk and the lower part of this, its four members, with the genital organs missing and the head, the face drawn on the stomach.

我们并不需要用力强迫这些事实说：在此被呈现的这个人物，让乌鸦嘴的四个两半（上面两半及下面两半）出现，作为一个人物的四个成员。他的身躯由神祗的脸孔代表。耐人寻味的是这种类比，处于这个再现，与弗洛伊德在一篇极端短的文本注意到的再现之间：「视觉偏执狂的神话对照。」他在里面描述一种偏执狂的再现，以「父亲的躯体」的名义，萦绕著病人。在这里，一个人物被想象成为是由一个身躯及身躯的下面部位，它的四个成员组成，性器官不见了，头部，脸孔则是缩在腹部那里。

And Freud concludes to the link between the Vater Arsch the father‟s arse, and the
patriarch, this subject possessing of course a quite filial veneration for the author of
his days, like any obsessional.

弗洛伊德的结论则是将这个「父亲的躯体」及父权连接成一块。当然，这个主体拥有一个相当孝顺的尊敬，对于他当代的作者，就像任何的偏执狂。

It seems to me that what Lévi-Strauss misses is this sacrifice of the head and of the
genital organs represented by the Kwakiutal mask which goes beyond the relationship
of what is shown to what is hidden but reveals a relationship of the unveiled to the
effaced, to the barred, to the lack.

我觉得，列文、史特劳斯所忽略的是，科瓦丘族人的面具所代表的头跟性器官的牺牲，远超过所被显示与所被隐藏之间的这个层关系。这个面具显示所被遮蔽与所被抹除，所被划槓禁止，所欠缺之间的关系。

The cause of desire is here. The metonymy is highlighted by Freud in the representation of the substitutive body for the lack of one of its parts, the genitals. All of this takes on its value because it exposes to us the interest taken by Freud at the end of his life in Moses, not simply because of his quality as a Jew, but also because monotheism appears there to be closely linked to the interdiction of idolatry and to the total effacing of every sign of the presence of God otherwise then under the form of names of the father (Yahve, Elohim, Adonai). Let us note here again the duplication of the non-identity to oneself.

欲望的原因就在此。弗洛伊德强调的这个换喻，在于再现身体代替它其中一个部位，也就是性器官的欠缺。所有这一切，具有它的价值，因为它将弗洛伊德在他的晚年，对于摩西感到的興趣揭露给我们。不仅是因为他作为犹太人的特质，而且因为一神教出现在那里，跟偶像的禁止，跟神祗的存在的每个迹象的抹除息息相关。其它则是以父亲的各种名义的形式之下，（雅维、阿罗席、阿顿奈）。让我们在此再次注意到，非认同与自己的复制/

The work of the death drive which always operates in silence can be noted in this
reduction – the word is to be taken in all its dimensions – which forces itself always to
reach this point of absence where the subject rejoins its dependency on the Other, to
identify itself to its own effacing. The mutation of the signifier, its epiphany in its
polymorphous and distributed shapes, indicates the startled response that it intends to
oppose – as in the dream – to this annihilation and the effort to which it perdures
profoundly disguised and modified, as a witness.

在这个还原里，总是默默运作的死亡冲动发挥的功用能够被注意到，（字词应该从它所有的维度来看待）。死亡冲动强迫它自己，总是为了到达欠缺的这个点。在这里，主体重新加入对于大他者的依靠，将它自己认同于对他自己的抹除。 能指的这个变种，它的多样形态及分布的形状的神性显现，指示著它打算要反对的这个感到惊吓的回应，（如同在梦里），回应这个毁灭，与它以深刻伪装与修正的持续的努力，作为见证者。

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

Object 21

Object 21

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

B – The problem of the differential distribution of the mode of representation

B. 再现的模式的不同分配的问题

Another type of differentiation interests us here, that of representations of words and
representations of things, a distinction which is not contingent. I am only recalling
this, which is already known, in order to put forward that: if there is a theory of the
signifier in Freud it cannot avoid passing through the perceived. This is tangible in
the organisation of discourse. In the narrative of the analysand, the secondary
elaboration of the dream, the present or revived phantasy, the image are renewed
testimonies to it in the text of our sessions. The question is whether all of this is really
of the order of the perceived.

另外一种差异让我们在此感到興趣，文字再现与冲动的再现的差异性。这种区别并非偶然性。我仅是提醒已经是众所周知的这件区别，为了提出：在弗洛伊德，假如有能指的理论，它无法避免要经历受到感觉者的这个阶段。在论述的组织，这是具体可见的。在分析者的叙事里，梦到第二次建构，在我们谘商的文本，目前或是苏醒的幻见，意象是梦的重新呈现的证词。

This representative of representation shows that one cannot reduce its status to that of
perception. Let us note once again that it is never a question of a presentation but of a
representation. The perceived only represents the point of fascination, the centring
effort of specularisation as Lacan would say. What allows a functioning at the level of
zero, is of the order of the subject, but what is going to emerge and take the place of
the one is here the o-object, on condition that one considers it in this differential
distribution, where the non-identity to itself is manifested in this disparity.

这种再现的代表显示, 我们无法将它的地位还原成为感觉的地位。让我们再一次注意，这从来就不是呈现的问题，而是再现的问题。受到感觉者仅是再现著迷的这个点，自我理想魅影化的核心努力，如拉康所言。容许在零度的层次发挥功用，是属于主体的秩序，但是所正要出现及代替这个自我理想的魅影化的，在此是这个小客体，只要我们认为它，在这个差异的分配。在那里，这个对于它自己的非认同，在这个差异性里，被证明出来。

The economic point of view is illustrated here not simply by being put in question
when it is a matter of the quantitative evaluation of the processes, but because it can
be identified in this differential distribution. It is the damming effect which weighs on
discourse which compels not alone the combinatorial, but again the changes of
register, of materials and of the modes of representation of the signifier. These
mutations have as object the accentuation of non-identity to itself not alone in the
resurgence of the signifier but in its metonymical metamorphoses. The metaphor is
infiltrated even into the metonymical enchaining.

生命力的观点在此被说明，不仅是由于受到质疑，当问题是过程的数量的评估，而且是因为它能够用差异的分配被辨明。就是这个该死的影响沉重地压在论述上面。这个论述不仅是驱迫著这种组合，而且再一次驱迫著能指的铭记，材料，及再现模式的改变。这些变种拥有非认同于它自己的强调，作为客体，不仅在能指的复兴，而且在能指的换喻的蜕变。比喻甚至被渗透到换喻的意符锁链里。

It is not for nothing that Freud opposes two systems: what functions at the level of the
one is the identity of perceptions and in the other the identity of thoughts. It is in so
far as both have a relationship with truth that they form part of our concepts. But the
disturbing and fascinating point comes from the fact that perception can be seen as a
field of identity while identity operates there in accordance with a register which is not that of the perceived.

这并非毫无意义，弗洛伊德让两个系统对立。在前者的层次发挥功用的是各种感觉到认同，后者则是各种思想的认同。因为两者都具有跟真理的关系，它们形成我们的观念的部分。但是这个令人困扰，令人着迷的要点来自这个事实：感官能够被视为是一种认同的领域，而认同在那里运作，依照并不是受到感觉者铭记的铭记。

It is this identity which abolishes difference as sustained by lack and which finds itself
being materialised in the perceived, in the same way as the identity of thoughts in the
order of thinking only become operational after the loss of the object.

就是这种认同废弃了由欠缺所维持的差异。这种认同发现它自己在受感觉者那里被具体化，就像在思维的秩序，思想的认同仅有在客体的丧失之后，它才开始运作。

Lacan did not seem to me to be quite right to have so severely criticised the works
dealing with negative hallucinations.

我觉得拉康并不是完全正确，对于处理负面幻觉的著作，如此严厉地批判。

At the very most one can only deplore their imprecise reference points. If negative hallucination is this emergence of the zero in so far as it has absolutely nothing to do with representation, is of the order of the representative of representation. Its value is to give support to the notion of aphanisis which has played such an important role for Lacan after Jones.

充其量，我们仅能够哀叹它们不是很明确的指称点。假如负面幻觉就是零度的这个出现，因为它跟再现绝对没有关系，它是属于再现的代表的秩序。它的价值是要给予支持，对于「主体消失」的观念。对于追随琼斯的拉康，这个「主体消失」扮演一个重要的角色。

One must also remember the alternative picked out by Lacan in Jones‟ work on
feminine sexuality, whose importance is probably greater: either the object, or the
desire. Negative hallucination would thus give the model of a subjective structure in
so far as it implies the mourning of the object and the advent of a negated subject thus
rendered apt for desire.

我们必须也记得拉康挑选的替代选择，在琼斯的「对于女人的性的研究」，这个研究的重要性可能更大，无论是客体，或是欲望。负面的幻觉因此将会给予一个主观性的结构模式，因为它暗示着客体的哀悼，及一个被否定，因此倾向于欲望的主体的来临。

Might one not recall here that the first modes of representation of the subject – the first i(o) – is precisely the product of a representation that is homologous with negative hallucination: the negative hand of the artist appearing in the contour of the painting which delimits its shape.

在此我们难道不是要提醒？主体的再现的最初模式，最初的自我理想的魅影，确实就是跟负面幻觉同质性的再现。艺术家的负面的手，出现在图画的轮廓里，这种轮廓除掉它的形状的限制。

One sees then how the phantasy is placed, since it is the function that Lacan assigns to it of rendering pleasure apt for desire. Here then there appears a form of emergence of a subject which escapes the annihilation of the signifying power in aphanisis, since the negative hallucination manages to be produced but as a specular lack. It seems to me to be the inaugural relationship of narcissistic identification in the sense conceived by Freud as a relationship to the mourning of the primordial object. It is the meeting
point of the cut and of the suture.

我们因此看出，这个幻见如何被摆置，因为拉康指定将倾向于欲望的快乐的诠释功用给它。因此在此，一个主体的出现的形态出现，这个主体逃避在「主体消失」时能指化的力量的消灭。因为这个负面的幻觉成功地被产生，仅是作为自我理想魅影的欠缺。我觉得，这是自恋的认同的开始的关系，弗洛伊德构想为对于原初的客体的哀悼的关系。这是切割与缝合的会合点。

It becomes clear that this process is the same as the one which grounds desire as the
desire of the Other, since mourning is interposed in the relationship of the subject to
the Other and of the subject to the object.

显而易见地，这个过程跟将欲望作为大他者的欲望的基础不谋而合。因为哀悼介入于主体跟大他者之间的关系，与主体跟这个客体之间的关系。

If the (o) operates between all these forms (one could say that it plays with the
fascination of the perceived in running through these registers), it is indeed because it
is, not as perceived, but as the trajectory of the subject, the circuit of discourse. I will
give an example of it taken from Othello. In Othello it is the handkerchief which
might appear as (o).

假如这个小客体，运作与所有的这些形式之间，（我们能够说，当彻底运作这些铭记时，它玩搞被感觉者的著迷），这确实是因为它不是作为被感觉者，而是作为主体的投射，真理论述的迴圈。我将给予从莎士比亚的「奥赛罗」取来的一个例子。在「奥赛罗」的悲剧，手帕出现作为小客体。

In fact it is here that we are witnesses to the fascination effort of the perceived, the truth is that it is not so much the handkerchief which is important as the circuit that it goes through from the magician who gave it to Othello‟s mother or her father (both versions are in Othello) until it ends up on the bed of Bianca, the whore, in order finally to reveal Othello to his desire, “my mother is a whore”. This must be demonstrated with the help of knowledge, for Othello like every jealous person wants an avowal more than the truth.

事实上，就在这里，我们见证到被感觉者的著迷的努力。真理是：重要的并不是手帕，它所经历的迴圈，从这位魔术家将它给予奥赛罗的母亲或她的父亲（奥赛罗有两种剧本），直到手帕结果出现在毕安卡的床上，这位妓女，最后为了显示奥赛罗看到他的欲望，「我的母亲是一位妓女」。这必须凭借知识才能被证明。因为奥赛罗，就像每一位妒忌的人，想要的是宣誓忠贞，而不是真理。

Is this not the way then that one must listen to his soliloquy, when he enters the
nuptial chamber where he is going to kill Desdemona to make of her wedding night a
night of mourning.

那么，这难道不是这种方式，我们必须倾听他的独白，当他进入婚姻的洞房，在那里，他将要杀死德丝底梦娜，为了要将她的结婚之夜，形成是哀悼之夜。

“It is the cause, it is the cause my soul
Let me not name it to you, you chaste stars.
It is the cause.”
(Act 5, Scene 2.)

「就是这个原因，这个原因，我的灵魂
让我不要跟你提的它，你们贞洁的星辰
就是这个原因。」

The function of the cause is here what orders the indubitable perception of his
mother‟s handkerchief in the hands of a whore.

原因的功用在此就是规范他的母亲的手帕，在一位妓女的手中，那种无可置疑的感觉。

Freud underlines in An outline of psychoanalysis that we live in the hope that with a
refining of our instruments of perception we may finally accede to certainty about the
sensible world. In fact he accentuates once more the affirmation that reality is
unknowable and that we can only allow ourselves a deduction of the truth from the
connections and the interdependencies existing between different orders of the
perceived. This is obviously to affirm the pre-eminence of the symbolic, if it were
needed.

弗洛伊德在「精神分析的轮廓」强调，我们生活在这个希望当中：凭借我们的感觉的各种工具的精炼，我们最后可能会同意关于可理解世界的这种确定性。事实上，他再一次强调这个肯定：现实界是不可知晓的，我们仅能容许我们，根据存在于被感觉的事物的不同秩序之间，那些连接与互相依靠，来从事真理的推论。

But his originality was to introduce at the level of the perceived an order, an
organisation, which allows him to get out of the dilemma of appearance and reality, in
order to substitute for it that of the ideal (Idealfunktion) and the truth, this couple
functioning moreover in the order of the perceived and of the thought. The confusion
repeated more than once between the symbol and the symbolic ought to make us more
attentive not to take one for the other.

但是他的原创性，是要在被感觉到事物里，介绍一种秩序，一种组织，让他能够逃脱这个表象与现实界的困境，为了用理想与真理的困境代替它。而且，理想与真理的这双重功用，属于被感觉事物与思想的秩序。这种混淆不仅一次地重复在符号与符号象征之间，应该让我们更加小心，不要将前者看待成为后者。

What then becomes then of the o-object? It exists as a structure of transformation
where the object of desire takes on a new mutation in which it is the desire that
becomes the object. Through what operation is the cross-checking (recoupement)
through the non-identity to themselves of these enumerated forms accomplished? I
think that one can grasp them in accordance with the two major axes of synchrony and diachrony taking Freud‟s theorisation as a reference.

那么，这个小客体发生什么事呢？它存在作为一个转变的结构。在那里，欲望的客体形成一种新的变种。在这新的变种里，欲望成为客体。通过怎样的运作，这个交互检视被完成呢？通过对于这些被列举的形态的不认同它们自己。我认为，我们能够理解它们，依照同时性与历时性的这两个主要的枢纽，它们将弗洛伊德的理论化，作为一种指称。

1 – In the axis of synchrony we have a series formed by thoughts in so far as they are
thoughts of the unconscious (and where it is necessary to distinguish between
representations of words and representations of things), affects (as secondary
signifiers) and two other categories which it seems to me must come into
consideration in so far as we observe them in the analytic situation and not outside it;

其一，这同时性的枢纽，我们拥有由思想形成的一连串，因为它们是无意识的思想 （在那里，文字的再现与冲动的再现需要被区别出来），情感（作为次级的能指），及其他两个范畴，我觉得它们必须被考虑到，因为我们观察它们，是在精神分析的情境里面，而不是在情境的外面。

I am thinking about states of one‟s own body – depersonalisation or hypochondria,
etc…- and all the manifestations which relate to what the English authors call
paraparaxes as expressions of the register of the act (acting-in and not acting-out).

我正在思考我们的身体的状态—除掉个体化，或是忧郁症，等等，以及跟英国作者所谓的「口误」息息相关的证明，作为是这个行动的铭记 （在里面的演出，而非是外面的演出）。

2 – But we can also map out another series on the axis of diachrony which is the axis
of the succession of oral anal phallic objects etc… I wonder whether the scopic object
and the auditory object that Lacan brings into this register gain from being included in
this series and whether they do not rather form part of the register of transmission
between synchrony and diachrony that one can pick out in discourse in the diverse
forms of the dream and its secondary elaboration, of phantasy, of memory, of
reminiscence, in short of all the ways which make synchrony and diachrony function.

其二、根据历时性，我们也能够描绘出另外一个系列。这个历时性是口腔、肛门、阳具，等客体的连续性枢纽。我想要知道，拉康带进这个铭记的这个视觉的客体及听觉的客体，是否由于被包括在这个系列里，而被获得。它们是否不会形成同时性与历时性之间的传递的铭记的部分。在梦与其次要的建构的形态，幻见，记忆，回忆的形态，总之，让同时性与历时性发挥功用的所有的方式。我们在论述里能够挑选出同时性与历时性。

It is upon this sampling that there operates the creation of the o-object in which desire
becomes the object and accounts for subjective positions. This non-identity to oneself
which the blank images is linked for me to the processes of the effacing of the trace.

这个小客体的创造，就是根据这个同时性与历时性的样本在运作。在那里，欲望成为客体，并且解释主体的各种立场。这种非认同于我们自己，对于我而言，这些空洞的意象，跟这个痕迹的抹除的过程息息相关。

This is what compels this system to be transformed.

这是驱迫这个系统被转变的原因。

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

Object 20

Object 20

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

A -The problem of the distinction between the representative of the drive and
Affect

A. 冲动的重现与情感之间的区别的问题

The distinction between the representative and the affect is conjectural in Freud‟s
work as we know. Often the drive is confused with the representative and visa versa.
But at the end of his work, we know that a further distinction that is more and more
marked is established where – this is what I propose should be taken into consideration- the affect takes on the status of signifier.

据我们所知，在弗洛伊德的著作，冲动的再现与情感的区别是推测性的。往往冲动的再现跟情感混淆，以及倒过来混淆。但是在他的著作的结尾，我们知道，更进一步的越来越清楚的区别被建立。这就是我建议，应该被考虑的地方—这个情感具有能指的地位。

The proof of this is that from 1924 on, the use of Verleugnung which it has been proposed to translate by déni (denial) is more and more specific; it finds its most precise formulation in the article on fetishism (1927) to which Lacan refers so frequently, the article on the splitting of the ego (1938) and finally in chapter VIII of the Outline of psychoanalysis (1939). Freud‟s thesis then becomes that perception falls under the influence of Verleugnung, whilst affect falls under the influence of the Verdrangung.

这个能指地位的证明是，从1924年开始，「否认」的使用曾经被建议翻译为「否认」是越来越明确。它获得它的最明确的说明，在论1927年论物神的那篇文章。拉康时常提到。这篇文章论自我的分裂（1927），最后在「精神分析的论廓」1939年的第八章。弗洛伊德的论文因此成为，感觉受到「否认」的影响，而情感却是受到「潜抑」的影响。

The possibility in the alternative of acceptance-refusal of a global functioning or one
impacting simply on one of the terms (perception and affect) is the condition for the
differentiated suturing of certain conflictual organisations.

对于全球化功用的接受与据绝，或是一个仅是影响这两个术语（感觉与情感）的其中一个，这种替代选择可能性，充当这个条件，以不同方式缝合某些冲突的组织机构。

It is here, it is starting from this distinction that Freud sees this splitting of the ego: the
Entzweiung that Lacan highlights. Now if Freud creates a term equivalent to
repression, denial, which has the same semantic value, it must probably be concluded
that if only a signifier can undergo this destiny, the fact is that affect enters into this
same category.

就在这里，从这个区别开始，弗洛伊德看出自我的这个分裂：拉康所强调的「分裂」。现在假如弗洛伊德创造一个术语，相等于是潜抑，否认，它拥有相同的语意价值，它一定可能被下结论：假如一个能指能够经历这个命运，事实上，情感就进入相同的范畴。

I even think that the definition of the signifier would gain perhaps by being completed
in the light of what is being said: the signifier would then be that which, under pain of
disappearing, must in order to subsist enter into a system of transformations where it
represents a subject for another signifier falling under the effect of the bar of
repression or denial which constrains it to a fall in its status as being in its relationship
with the truth, a fall through which it exceeds or it comes to the rank of signifier in its
resurrection.

我甚至认为，能指的定义将会成立，或许凭借从所正在被说的内容来完成：能指因此将是，违反者消失。为了要生存，能指必须进入这些转变的一个系统。在那里，能指代表一个主体，对于另外一个受到潜抑或是否认的划槓的影响的能指。这种否认将它限制于它的地位的一种掉落，因为它处于跟真理的关系，通过这种掉落，它超过或是来到能指从事它的复活的地位。

There would be a certain interest in underlining the correlation of these two modes of
signification, each one englobing the two mechanisms. The affect is only seen as a
discharge, even though it is – Freud says it for anxiety – a signal (a signifier for us), the representative is only seen as a signifier while it is (in the Freudian theory) the
generation of a certain mode of production, therefore of discharge (engendered by the impossibility of this).

有某种的興趣强调这两种意义模式的相关性，每一种模式都伪装有这两种机械结构。情感仅是被视为是一种发泄，即使它是一种讯号（对于我们的一个能指），如弗洛伊德谈论焦虑时谈到它。冲动的再现仅是被视为一个能指，而在弗洛伊德的理论，冲动的再现是发泄的某种产物模式，（由于这个的不可能所产生）。

In the Ego and the Id Freud takes up the question already evoked, not without
difficulty in his article on the unconscious, about the difference between the
representative and the affect. What qualifies the affect is that it cannot enter into any
combinatorial. It is repressed but its specificity qua signifier is to be expressed
directly, and not pass through the connecting links of the preconscious.

在「自我与本我」，弗洛伊德从事这个已经被召唤的问题，不是没有遭遇困难，在他论无意识的文章，关于冲动的再现与情感的这个差别。作为情感的特质是，它无法从事任何的组合。它被潜抑，但是它作为能指的明确性，应该直接地被表达，而不是经历前意识到连接性的结合。

In his seminar on anxiety, Lacan elucidated and demonstrated what unleashes anxiety,
the fashion it operates when there is anxiety. But I would ask myself if he has really
taken into account what anxiety is in the sense of the status that it has in the theory.

在他论焦虑的研讨班，拉康说明并且证明是什么释放焦虑，以及当有焦虑时，它运作的方式。但是我将询问我自己，是否他真的考虑到焦虑是什么，从它在理论的地位的意义。

I believe that there is an interest in considering affect as an original semantic form
alongside the primary semantides – terms borrowed from the vocabulary of molecular
biology – which are the representatives; it would function then in a secondary position
which would allow it to acquire the status of a secondary semantide of a different
nature to that of the representative and reduplicating the Entzweiung in this difference.
There would be a reduplication of non-identity to itself through this disparity of the
two registers of the signifier.

我相信，会有興趣将情感认为是一种原创性的语意形式，跟原初的带信息份子相提并论。这些术语是从分子生物学的字彙借用过来。这些带信息份子就是冲动的再现。它因此在第二个立场发挥功用。这第二个立场容许它获得不同特质的第二个带信息分子的地位。不同于冲动再现的地位，跟在这个差异里重新复制这个「分裂」。通过能指的两种铭记的差异性，将会有一种非认同于本身的重新复制。

Contrary to received opinion, it is very curious to see that Freud makes of language
what transforms internal processes into perception and not as might be imagined what
detaches itself from the perceptive plane, and which would belong to the order of
thought. With affect we are in the presence of an effect of the effacing of the
perceived trace restored under the form of discharge.

跟通俗的意见相反，耐人寻味的是看到，弗洛伊德将语言解释为：转移内部过程成为感觉的东西，而不是如通俗想象的，是将它自己跟感觉层次疏离的东西，那将是属于思想的秩序。而对于情感，我们处于一种情感的面前，被感觉的痕迹的被抹除的一种情感，以宣泄的形态恢复。

What about the representative? Considerations of terminology are not useless here. It
is not for nothing that it has long being discussed whether the
Vorstellungrepräsentanz, the representative representating, the representative of
representation, what takes the place of representation. We know that it enters into the
combinatorial.

那冲动的再现是什么？术语的考虑在此并非没有用途。这并非毫无意义，长久以来大家一直在讨论，Vorstellungrepräsentanz, 是否翻译为冲动再现的符号再现，再现符号的冲动再现，是什么代替再现冲动？我们知道，冲动再现进入符号组合。

This is where the ambiguity begins. It does not enter into it as a homogeneous unit identical to itself. The clairvoyance of Freud in his domain was to make from the start this exclusive distinction present to all your memories between perception and memory. Let us recall the role that he makes reminiscence play in so far as it is supposed to be, as one might say, memory in the locus of the Other but which preserves the trace before it not without losing its quality of memory if it comes to be lived out in actuality.

这是模糊暧昧开始的地方。冲动再现并没有进入符号组合，作为认同于它自己的同质性单位。弗洛伊德在他的领域的敏锐天赋，从一开始，就应该将这个专门的区别呈现给所有你们处于感觉与记忆之间的记忆。让我们回想一下，他让回忆扮演的这个角色。我们不妨说，回忆被认为是处于大他者的轨迹的记忆，但是它在大他者面前，保留这个痕迹，并不是没有丧失它的记忆的特质，假如回忆在现实界要被实现的话。

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

Object 19

Object 19

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

This is where we encounter the function of cause developed by Jacques Lacan. If,
with Frege, the identity to oneself has allowed the passage from the thing to the
object, may we not think that what we have just shown may function as a relationship
of the object to the cause?

这就是我们遭遇拉康所发展的原因的功用，假如就弗瑞吉而言，对于自己的认同已经容许从这个物通过到这个客体，我们难道不能认为，我们刚刚显示的，可能发挥功用，作为一种客体跟原因的关系？

One might conclude that the object is the signifying relationship which can link the two terms of the thing and of the cause. We would here perhaps have one of the examples spoken about in this still contested article by Freud on the antithetical sense of primitive words since we know that chose (thing ) and cause (cause) have a common root, the mediation here being found to pass through the object.

我们可能认为，这个客体是能指化的关系，它能够连接物与原因的两个术语。我们在此或许拥有其中一个例子，被弗洛伊德以这篇具有争议性的文章谈论，根据原初的文字的强烈对比的意义。因为我们知道，无意识的物与原因拥有一个共同的根，在此仲介被发现通过这个客体。

In short, we would be present at the passage from “the indeterminate” to “the state of
what is or works”, from “what is in fact” to “what is of the order of reason, of the
subject, or of the motive” through the intermediary of the object in so far as its
definition is: “what presents itself to sight or affects the senses” (Littré).

总之，在这个通过过程，我们将会在现场，从这个「不确定」到「运作的状态」，从「事实上实存」到「理性，主体，或动机的秩序的实存」，通过客体的仲介，因为它的定义是：「呈现它自己给视觉或情感。」

B – The problem of representation

B. 符号再现的问题

Here there is posed then our second problem, namely that of representation. It seems
to me that Miller paid little attention to all the references to representation used by
Frege. Nevertheless he preserved in the passage quoted above the notion of an
alternative movement of a representation and of an exclusion. The function of
gathering together, of subsumption is solidary with the notion of a power which puts
things together and which at the cost of a cut (that of the power of gathering together
presented to the thing, represented). It is the cut which allows the representation.

在此，我们的第二个问题被提出，也就是符号再现的问题。我觉得，米勒几乎很少注意弗瑞吉所使用的符号再现的所有指称。可是，他在以上被引述的段落里，保存符号再现与排除的替代运动。内涵的汇集的功用，跟将东西聚集一块的力量的观念息息相关，并且以切割作为代价（聚集在一块的力量，呈现给事情，然后符号再现）。就是这个切割，容许符号再现。

Now here the number zero figures as object under which there falls no representation.
It is by the very operation of the cut that there comes, that there is accomplished the
subject I would say on the back of, at the expense of the object. As if one could say:
what does the cut (of the subject) matter since there remains the suture (of the oobject).

现在，在此的这个零的数字，充当没有符号再现掉落在底下的客体的图形。凭借着出现那里的这个切割的运作，我所谓的依靠客体及以客体作为代价的这个主体，就在那里被完成。好像我们能够说，既然客体的缝合始终在那里，主体的这个切割有何重要之处？

This is what the sacrifice of the object by desire in a way realises. What
matter the loss of the object if the desire survives and outlasts it. Something also
which would be of the order of: the object is dead, long live the desire (of the Other).
The demand becomes what assures the renewed resurrection of desire in the case
where it might happen to be lacking; it is formulated through the o- object.

这就是客体被欲望所牺牲，以某种方式实现的东西。假如欲望存活而且比客体存活的更久，那客体的丧失，又有什么关系？也将是属于客体的秩序的某件东西，已经是死亡，但愿大他者个的欲望万岁长存！这种要求变成为保证欲望的重新复活的东西，假如它恰巧是欠缺的话，它是通过这个客体来说明。

The demand which is sustained by no cause, a cause whose effect is the hole, through
which the remainder is confused with the demand, is this not the way that the fool –
the buffoon, Polonius – sees the fool – Hamlet in love with his daughter and an
uncertain avenger of the dead Father – which will make another father perish, that of
the object of his desire (Polonius) after a tragic mistake.

受到没有缘由所维持的要求，一种影响的是这个空洞的缘由，通过这个空洞，剩余物跟要求混淆一块。这难道不是傻瓜，这个笨蛋，普洛尼斯，看到傻瓜的方式？哈姆雷特爱上他的女儿，这是死去的父亲的不确定的复仇者。他让另外一位父亲消灭，他的欲望（普洛尼斯）的客体的父亲，由于悲剧性的错误.

“That I have found
the very cause of Hamlet‟s lunacy
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad
mad call I it; for to define true madness
what is it but to be nothing else but mad.”

「我已经发现
哈姆雷特的疯狂的缘由，
我间短地说。你高贵的儿子疯了，
我称它为疯狂，因为要定义真实的疯狂
是什么？难道不就是没有别的，就是疯狂。」

And further on:

然后，他继续说：

“That we find out the cause of this effect,
or rather say the cause of this defect,
for this effect defective comes by cause
thus it remains, and the remainder thus.
Perpend”.

「我们发现这个影响的缘由，
或者说是这个缺点的缘由，
因为缺点的这个影响是从缘由而来
它始终是这样，剩余物是这样
请沉思一下。」

Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2.

哈姆雷特，第二幕，第二场景

III – THE RELATION o TO i(o) AND THE PROBLEM OF
REPRESENTATION AND SPECULARISATION.

III．客体跟自我理想到魅影的关系，与符号再现于自我理想魅影化的问题

Lacan insists forcibly on the fact that the o-object is not specularisable, the reference
to the specular image is neither the image of the object nor that of representation, it is,
says Lacan in his seminar on Identification (1962) another object which is not the
same. It is caught up in the framework of a relationship where there comes into play
the narcissistic dialectic whose limit is the phallus which operates there under the
form of a lack.

拉康强烈地坚持这个事实：这个客体并无法被自我理想魅影化。提到这个自我理想的魅影意象，既不是客体的意象，也不是符号再现的意象。拉康在他的「论认同」的研讨班说到，这是另外一个并不是相同的客体。它被套陷在一种关系的架构里。在那里，这个自恋的辩证运作。这个自恋的辩证的限制就是这个阳具。这个阳具以一种欠缺的形态在那里运作。

Now we have just seen the non-depictable object represented by the number zero.
What does Freud have to say about it? By considering the problem uniquely from the
angle of the narcissistic dialectic one short-circuits in my opinion the problem of
representation which refers to the object of the drive. Freud designates it as eminently
substitutable and interchangeable, which might perhaps appear to be a compensation
for the impossibility of flight before internal stimuli, an intermediary procedure, I
would say between a limited exchange and a generalised exchange.

现在，我们刚刚看见这个无法被描述的客体，被用零这个数字来符号再现。对于这个零的数字，弗洛伊德必须说些什么呢？当我们独特地从自恋的辩证的角度，来考虑这个问题，依我之见，我们会将提到冲动驱力的客体的符号再现的问题短路中断。弗洛伊德指明它，作为显而易见是可替代与可互相交换的。或许它似乎是一种不可能逃离内部刺激的补偿，我不妨说，那是处于有限的交换与一般性的交换之间的一种仲介的过程。

It is necessary that there should participate in this exchange as an exchanged term an
object of the drive, thereforee it is not any object whatsoever that is involved in the
substitution.

在这个交换当中，必须有有一个冲动驱力的客体，参与作为一个被交换的东西。因此，牵涉到这种替代的，并不是任何客体。

Two problems here present themselves before us. The first is that of the distinction
between the representative of the drive and affect, the second is that of the differential
distribution of the mode of representation.

在此，两个问题呈现在我们面前。第一个问题是，冲动驱力符号再现与情感之间的区别，第二个问题是，符号再现的模式的不同的分配。

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

Object 18

Object 18

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

A – The problem of the suture 缝合的问题

Leclaire protested against this suturing inferred by Miller. The question remains: is
there or is there not a suture? Is not what designates the position of the psychoanalyst
with respect to the truth precisely the privilege that he does not have to suture? How
can one deny that there is a suture if there is a concatenation?

雷克莱抗议由米勒推论的这个缝合。这个问题始终是：有或是没有一个缝合？精神分析家的立场关于真理所指明的东西，确实就是他并没有拥有缝合的特权吗？我们如何否认：假如后结合，就会有缝合？

I would take as proof this argument of Freud that is too often forgotten on the
consequences of castration. If it is possible, if the threat has been executed, it does not
simply deprive the subject of masturbatory pleasure, but it has, the henceforth
definitive impossibility for the castrated subject of a union with the mother.

我将会以时常受人忘记的弗洛伊德对于阉割的结果的论点，作为证据。假如可能，假如曾经被执行的威胁，假如可能，它不仅是剥夺主体这个受淫式的快乐，而且它拥有，它拥有从此是明确的不可能，对于跟母亲结合的被阉割的主体。

That castration is seen here as the collapse of the whole system of the signifier by the
rupture of any possibility of concatenation, explains why Freud compares it to a
disaster whose costs are immeasurable. In any case the penis plays here the role of
mediator of the cut and of the suture.

那个阉割在此被视为能指的整个系统的崩塌，由于结合的可能的中断。这解释为什么弗洛伊德将它比喻为一个代价难以估计的灾难。无论如何，男根在此扮演切割与缝合的仲介者的角色。

How can this be sutured? Jacques-Alain Miller, as I have just said, has shown the
assenscion of the number zero its transgression of the bar under the form of one, its
vanishing in the passage from n to n‟ which is n +1. But one would not be wrong
either to highlight the fact that the logic of an unconscious concept has requirements
that are internal to its formation.

这如何能够被缝合呢？如我刚刚说的，雅克、米勒，曾经显示，零这个数字汇集划槓禁制的侵犯在「一」的形式之下，它的消失，在这个过程，从n 到n加1的次方。但是我们假如强调这个事实：无意识的逻辑观念，拥有它的内在形成的这个要件，我们也不算错误。

Here let us quote Freud (with Leclaire): “faeces”, “child”, “penis” thus form a unity, an unconscious concept (sit venia verbo). The concept specifically of a little thing which can be separated from one‟s own body.

在此，我们引述弗洛伊德（跟雷克莱）: 「粪便」「小孩」「男根」，因此形成一个统一，这是一种无意识的观念。这个明确是一个小东西的观念，它会跟它自己的身体分开。

To an opposition of a binary type, the one that linguistics offers us, that of phonology
where relationships are always posed in terms of an antagonistic couple and the one
that is put at the basis of all information, there is substituted here an operational
process with three terms (n, +, n‟) with the vanishing of a term as soon as it is
manifested . We find here a sort of paradigm which can give us the path of what may
be involved in the cutting up of the signifier.

对于一种双极种类的对立，语言学提供给予我们的这个「一」，语音学的这个「一」，关系总是被提出，以一种敌意的配对。这个被提出的一，作为所有资讯的基础，在此有一个运作的过程被替代，使用三个术语 （n + n）的次方，由于一种术语的消失，当它被证明。我们在此发现一种典范，能够给予我们这条途径，在能指的切割牵涉的东西。

In effect the linguists show themselves to be extremely embarrassed when it is a
matter of the cutting up of the signified while the cutting up of the signifier does not
present us with any kind of difficulty it seems. If for example I can believe Martinet,
I read: “ As regards semantics, if it has acquired the sense which interests us, it is
nonetheless derived from a root which evokes not at all a psychic reality but rather the
processes of meaning which are implied by the combination of the signifier and of the
signified”. “A seme in any case can be nothing other than a two faced unit.”

事实上，语言学家显示他们自己是极端尴尬，当问题是这个所指的被切割，而能指的切割，并没有呈现给予我们它显示的任何种类的困难。譬如，假如我能够相信马提尼，我阅读为：「关于语言学，假如它曾经获得让我们感到興趣的意义，它仍然是从一个根获得，这个根根本没有召唤一个心理的现实，而是相反地，意义的过程被暗含在能指的与所指的结合里。语素实实在在就是一个两面的单位。

The embarrassment comes here from the fact that any direct reference to the signified
would ruin the structuralist approach, since its accession by way of the signifier
creates the necessary detour for an indirect, relative and correlative apprehension.
Moreover, and above all, the tracing out of relevant traits leaves us here in perplexity.
Definitively, what lacks a consistent support here is the structure of the body. Does
not the assurance of holding as firm the relevant traits in phonology repose
definitively on the functioning of the vocal apparatus?

这种尴尬在此来自这个事实：任何直接提到这个所指，会毁灭这个结构主义的方法，因为它藉由能指的增加创造出这个必须的迂回，为了获得一种间接，相对，与互相的理解。而且，尤其是，相关特征的追踪在此让我们处于困惑中。明确地说，在此欠缺一种一致的支持，就是身体的结构。在语音学，拥有相关的特征作为确定，明确地是依靠这个声音器官的发挥功用。

No doubt it is under the command of the nervous system, which explains the fascination of linguists for cybernetics. The psychoanalyst is here the only one who tries to listen to the sense, at its level, namely to consider, while respecting the same requirement of indirect reference, that the cutting up passes to the level of the signified and that it is this cutting up itself which will imply a cutting up of the signifier which renders the signified intelligible.

无可置疑地，就在神经系统的命令之下，它解释语言学家对于电脑语音的著迷。精神分析家在此是唯一的人，尝试倾听这种意义，在它的层次，换句话说，当它尊重间接指称的要件，它考虑到，这个切割通往所指的层次。就是这种切割本身将会暗示着能指的切割，它使得所指能够被理解。

Here there is located the ambiguity that must be raised between the linguistic concept of the signifier and its psychoanalytic formulation as Lacan conceives of it. But is it the same thing?

在此，在能指的语言的观念，与依照拉康构想它，作为精神分析的说明，它们之间的模糊暧昧被定位。但是这是相同的事情吗？

You have no doubt recognised in this two-faced unity the theorisation of the Moebius
strip by Lacan. But can one not consider that the cutting up of the signified in this
metonymical series of different partial objects is represented by the phallus precisely
in so far as it has appeared in the form of (-phi) in its different partial objects whose
diachronic succession you know well: oral object, anal object, phallic object, etc. these terms only representing their mapping-out with respect to the erogenous zones,
leaving a place for more complex forms.

无可置疑地，在这两面的统一里，你们曾经体认出，拉康所说的莫比斯环带的理论化。但是我们能够不认为：所指的这个切割，在这个换喻的系列，对于不同的客体，它确实由这个阳具所代表，因为它以这个负的（-phi）的方式出现，以它的不同的部分客体。这些部分客体的历时性连续，众所周知：口腔的客体，肛门的客体，阳具的客体，等等。这些术语仅是代表它们的描绘，关于性感的地带，留下一个位置，容纳更复杂的形式。

This could reconcile a choice between a strict binary system which refers to options
which do not allow us ternary mediation, and another system where causality is
developed in a network, a type of reticular system which makes disappear any
functioning of an oppositional type.

这个能够让一种严格的两极的系统之间选择和谐。这个系体提到不容许我们有第三的仲介的选择。另外一个系统，在那里，因果律在网络里被发展，这是一种网络的系统，它让一种对立种类的运作消失。

Finally it clearly appears that the minimal form of this reticular structure is the
triangular structure where the third is vanishing. It is, I believe, the operation
illuminated by Miller‟s commentary.

最后，它清楚地显现，这个网络结构的最小的形式是这个三角形结构，在那里第三个单位逐渐消失。我相信，这就是米勒的评论启明的运作。

This may evoke for us diverse forms of relationships with which we have to deal in
the Oedipus complex where an opposition, that of the difference between the sexes, in
so far as it is supported by the phallus is in fact inserted into a triangular system which
is never apprehended except in two by two relationships; where the phallus constitutes
the standard of exchange, its cause.

这可能跟我们召唤关系的各种的形式。我们必须处理这些关系，在伊底普斯情结里，在那里。一种对立，两性之间的差异的对立。因为它由阳具来支持，它事实上被插入一个三角形的系统。这个系统从来没有被理解，除了以二对二的关系。在那里，阳具形成交换的标准，它的原因。

Saussure had the merit of placing at the beginning of the tongue as system, value,
outlining in this respect the comparison with political economy. But even though he
separated it out here, he scarcely went any further and did not pose himself the
question of what has value for the speaking subject. Thus the suture is accomplished
by allowing value to be seen as a cause without telling us anything about it.

索绪尔拥有这个优点，将「价值」放置在语言的开始，作为系统。在这方面，它描绘跟政治的活动力量相比较。但是即使他在此分开它，他很少更深入探讨，并且并没有跟自己提出这个问题：对于言说的主体，是什么拥有这个价值？因此，这个缝合被完成，由容许价值被视为是一种原因，而没有告诉我们这个原因是什么。

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

Object 17

Object 17

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

F – The (o), product of work 这个客体，运作的产物

One might think, even though Lacan does not say it expressly, that the progression regression dimension might constitute a plane that is correlative to those of conjunction- disjunction and of suture-cut. The developments generated on the plane of knowledge are to be taken in their negative perspective, referring back to the plane of miscognition where they are organised in the approach of the processes of meaning – which ceaselessly tend to cancel out or to nullify the loss of the object – to what was signified around this loss, by the traces left of this work, of which the o-object is the surest reference point, the index of truth pointed towards the subject. Freud insists, in his final works on the historical truth at which the construction of the analyst aims.

我们可能认为，即使拉康并没有生动地说它，进展与退化的维度可能形成一种平面，跟结合与中断、缝合与切割的平面有相互关系。在知识的层面被产生的这个发展，应该以它们负面的观点来看待，回溯到误认的层面。在那里，它们依照意义的处理过程的方法来组织。这样会无止境地倾向于取消或是让这个客体的丧失成为无效。它回溯到环绕这个丧失所被能指化的东西，根据这个客体运作遗留的痕迹—这个客体就最确定的指称点，被指向主体的真理的索引。弗洛伊德坚持，在他探究历史的真理的最后的著作。精神分析的建构的目标就朝向这个历史的真理。

The channel of demand constitutes the guiding thread of this access to the truth. Its
function is not alone to serve as a guide, but to form the very outline of this itinerary
of the paths of truth.

要求的频道组成接近这个历史的真理的引导方针。它的功用并不单是要充当一种引导的用途，而且要形成真理的各种途径的这种旅行的轮廓。

***********************************
This reminder in which we have only wanted to keep the indispensable minimum for
the development which is going to follow is going to allow us to pose some problems.

在这个提醒里，我们仅是想要对于这个将随之而来的发展，保持无可避免的最小量。这个提醒将会容许我们提出一些问题：

a – Given the relationship of the o-object to representation it would be well to ask
oneself what are the relationships between it and the signifying chain. Does the lack
represent some relationship with the word as concatenation.

1、 假如考虑到这个客体跟符号再现的关系，我们最好询问自己，在它与能指化的锁链之间的这个关系是什么。这个欠缺难道代表某种跟文字的关系，作为结合。

b – Must one accord – in turning towards Freud – the status of the signifier to the
Vorstellungrepräsentanz alone? What about affect?

2、当我们回转朝向弗洛伊德，我们必须同意能指仅是跟这个「再现符号的再现」 的地位吗？情感的地位怎么说？

c – is there not in the work of Freud a point about representation which has not found
an echo in Lacan: the distinction between different types of representation (of words
and of things for example) which might lead us to differentiate still more, in order to
underline the original character of the Freudian concatenation.

3、在弗洛伊德的著作里，难道没有一点关于符号再现，还没有在拉康被发现的共鸣？区别不同种类的符号再现（譬如文字及事情），它们可能引导我们从事更深入的区分，为了强调弗洛伊德的结合的原先特性。

d – If knowledge is what comes in the place of truth, after the loss of the object, would
it not be appropriate to link one to the other by the traces of this loss and the attempt
to efface them.

4、假如知识是用来代替真理，追求这客体的丧失。使用这个丧失的痕迹来连接前者跟后者，并且企图抹除它们，这难道不是适当的吗？

These are questions which will allow the o-object to be considered less as a support of
the partial object than as the pathway of a hand tracing, the inscription, the letter, o.

这些都是容许客体被考虑的问题，不是作为部分客体的支持，而是作为手写痕迹的途径，铭记，字母的讯息，客体。

II -THE SUTURING OF THE SIGNIFIER, ITS REPRESENTATION AND
THE o-OBJECT 能指的缝合，它的符号再现及这个小客体

I come now to what is going to constitute another axis of my presentation, namely the
relationship between (o) and the cut and the suture, and I will refer to the presentation
by J A Miller concerning the theorisation, starting from the work of Frege, of the logic of the signifier.

我现在来到作为我的呈现的另外一个轴心的形成的东西。换句话说，这个客体跟这个切割与缝合之间的关系。我将提到雅克、米勒的呈现，关于这个理论化，从弗瑞吉的研究的能指的逻辑的理论化开始。

This in order to situate correctly the position of the number zero in the measure in which it is going to have an impact on the destiny of (o).

为了要正确地定位这个数字零在测量的立场。在这个测量里，数字零将会对于客体的命运有所影响。

In virtue of the principle according to which, in order that the truth may be saved,
everything is identical to itself and zero is the number assigned to the concept “not
identical to itself”, there is no object which falls under this concept.

凭借这个原则，依照这个原则，为了让真理被拯救，一切都认同与它自己，而零这个数字被指定给「不认同它自己」这个观念。在这个观念之下，没有客体会掉落。

But, says Miller, speaking about Frege, “it was necessary, in order to exclude any
reference to the real, to evoke at the level of the concept an object that is non-identical
to itself – subsequently rejected from the dimension of the truth”.

The zero (O) which is inscribed at the place of the number consummates the exclusion of this object. As for this place designated by subsumption where the object is missing, nothing can be written and if it is necessary to trace a O, it is only to picture a blank in it, to make the lack visible”.

但是谈论到弗瑞吉时，米勒说：「这是需要的，为了排除任何指称到实在界，在观念的这个层次召唤一个非认同与它自己的客体，这个实在界的指称随后会被从真理的维度被拒绝。」

There is here therefore on the one hand the evocation and the exclusion of the object which is not identical to itself and on the other hand this blank, this hole in place of this subsumed object.

因此，在一方面，在此有这个召唤及非认同它自己的客体的排除。在另一方面，这个空白，这个空洞，代替这个被包容的客体。

The notion of unity is given by the concept of identity, the concept of the subsumed
object. But the place of one, no longer qua unity but qua number one, remains
problematic as regards its place as the first, as regards its primordiality, as I might say.

统一的这个观念，给认同的观念，这个被包容的观念给予。但是「一」的这个位置，不再作为统一性，而是作为「一」的数字，始终是问题重重，关于它作为第一的位置，关于它的原初性，我不妨说

It is not legitimate, Miller remarks, to count the number zero as nothing, and logic
demands then that one should confer on this number zero the role of first object.

。米勒说，要将零这个数字认为是空无，这是难以自圆其说，逻辑因此要求：我们应该给予零这个数字，作为第一个客体的角色。

The consequence of this is the identity to the concept of the number zero which
subsumes the object number zero in so far as it is one object. The primordiality, in
short, cannot be established under the sign of unity, but of number starting from which the one is possible, the number zero. Thus a double register overlaps a functioning which must be unfolded in order to understand the ambiguity of the number zero in so far as it includes :

这个的结果就是认同零这个数字的观念。它包容零的数字的客体，因为它是一个客体。总之，这个原初性，在统一性的符号下，无法被建立，而要在数字的符号下。从这个数字，从零这个数西开始，这个「一」才有可能。因此，一种双重的铭记重叠一种功用，它必须被展开，为了了解零这个数字的模糊暧昧，因为它包含以下：

– the register of the concept of not identical to itself
– the register of the object, matrix of the one, the object permitting the assignation of the number one.

–非认同与它自己的观念的铭记
–客体的铭记，这个「一」的基座，这个客体容许「一」这个数字的指定。

Thus there is uncovered the double operation:
-The evocation and the elision of the non-identical to itself, with a blank at the
level of the object subsumed permitting the number zero
– The introduction of zero as a number, that is as a signifying name and as an
object.

因此，这个双重的运作被揭发出来：
–非认同它自己的召唤与遗漏，在被包容的客体的层次，具有一个空白，容许零这个数字。
–零的介绍作为一个数字，换句话说，作为一个能指化的名字，及作为一种客体。

This situation has an interest for us above all in so far as it specifies the structure of
the concatenation. Not only does the subject exclude himself from the scene and from
the signifying chain by the very fact that he constitutes it as subject in its structure of
concatenation, but the first of these objects operates at once as a concept and as an
object, not represented but named unary object and concept on the non-identical to
itself, a concept that is a threat to the truth and this all the more so because it is out of
play, or hors-je (out of I).

这个情况尤其让我们感到興趣，因为它指明结合的这个结构。主体不仅是从这个场景及从这个能指化的锁链，排除他自己，根据这个事实： 他组成它作为一个主体，在它作为结合的结构。而且，这些客体的第一个同时运作，作为一个观念，也作为一个客体，不是被代表，而是被命名为单一的客体及对于非认同于它自己的观念。这一种观念是对这个真理的一种威胁。这更加是如此，因为它无法运作，它是「非我」。

This concept of the threat to the truth is for us a concept which emerged from the
encounter with the truth, in so far as it dissociates not alone the truth from its
manifestation (identity to itself) but designates here its place, through the blank or the
trace which negates it. It is insufficient to see in this, (it has to be said) only a simple
relationship of absence. It is also necessary that there should be circumscribed here its
relationship of lack of truth.

对于真理的威胁的这个观念，对于我们而言，是一个从跟真理遭遇而出现的观念，因为它不仅中断真理跟它的展现（认同于它自己），而且在此指明它的位置，通过这个空白，这个否定它的痕迹。在这里，并不足以看出 （我们必须说）仅仅是一个欠缺的关系。这也是需要的，在此，它跟真理的欠缺的关系应该被界定范围。

The interest taken by us in this confrontation with Frege read by Miller is to link the
subject to the signifier. The subject is identified to the repetition which presides over
each of the operations through which concatenation is knotted together, in the hold on
each fragment by the one which precedes it and by the one which succeeds it: at the
same time and in the same movement the subject sees itself so many times rejected
outside the scene – and from my chain – which thus constitutes itself. Now if the
operation excludes at every stage, the nullifying does not suppress the having which
subsists for us, on condition of being able to recognise it under the form of (o).

米勒朗读这种跟弗瑞吉的结合，我们感到的興趣，是要连接主体跟这个能指。主体认同于这个重复，这个重复代表了每一个运作。通过这个运作，结合被连接在一块，在掌控每一个碎片，使用存在于它前面的这个「一」，及后来接续它的这个「一」：同时及同一个动作，主体好几次看见它自己，在这个场景之外被拒绝—从我的锁链—因此，它组成它自己。现在，即使这个运作在每个阶段排除，这种使无效并没有压制对于我们是存在的这个拥有，只要我们能在这个客体的形式下体认出它。

The effect of concatenation rejoins the definition by Lacan of the signifier: “the
signifier is what represents a subject for another signifier”.

结合的影响重新连接拉康对于这个能指的定义：「能指是代表一个主体，对于另外一个主体。」

There is thus clarified what is involved in the relationships of the subject and of the o-object in their relationships of suture and of cut. “If the succession of numbers, metonymy of zero begins by its metaphor,” says Miller, “if the number O of the sequence as number is only the suturing substitute for the absence (of absolute zero) which is carried underneath the chain following the alternative movement of a representation and of an exclusion – what creates an obstacle to recognising in the restored relationship of the zero to the sequence of numbers the most elementary articulation of the relationship that the subject has with the signifying chain?”.

因此，在这个主体与这个客体的关系所牵涉的东西被澄清，在它们处于缝合与切割的关系。「假如数字的连续性，零的换喻从它的比喻开始，」米勒说，「假如这个系列的零这个数字作为数字，仅是缝合地代替「绝对的零」的欠缺。它在锁链底下被执行，跟随在一个符号再现与一种排除的替代的动作—在这个零被恢复到数字的系列，引起体认的阻碍的东西，那是最基本的表达主体跟这个能指化的锁链的关系。

I leave here the question of the relationship of the subject to the big Other by the effect of the zero but I am going to raise two problems, that of the suture and that of
representation.

我在此使用这个零的效应，留下主体与大他者的关系这个问题，但是我将要提出两个问题。缝合的问题及符号再现的问题。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Http://springhero.wordpress.com

Object 16

Object 16

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

C – The o, object of desire 欲望的这个客体

In effect, Lacan postulates the existence of an ideal ego as a precocious form of
identification of the ego to certain objects which operate both as love objects and
objects of identification, but in so far as they are extracted, cut out, taken from a series
which makes the lack appear. I who am speaking identify you to the object which you
yourself are lacking, says Lacan.

实际上，拉康提出一个理想自我的存在，作为自我认同与某些客体的早熟的形式。这些客体运作既当著是爱的客体，又当著认同的客体。但是当它们被抽取出来，被切割出来，从一系列让这个欠缺消失当中被拿出来。作为言说者的我，将你认同为你自己欠缺的这个客体，拉康说。

The relationship between (o) and O is therefore clearly shown. If O only reaches its full meaning by being sustained by the Name of the Father which is not, is it necessary to specify, either a name or a God, it passes as we have seen through the maternal defile and is only reached when the cut between the subject and maternal object irremedially separates him from the aforesaid object.

这个括弧的小客体与大他者之间的关系，因此显而易见地显示出来。假如大他者仅是到达这个充分的意义，由于受到「以父亲之名」的维持。需要指明的是，这个「以父亲之名」，要就是一个名字，要不就是一个上帝。它被认为是我们曾经看见过的东西，通过母亲的管道。它仅能够被到达，当主体与母亲的客体的这个切割，无可挽回地分开他，跟前述的客体。

Or again when there is revealed the lack which affects the primordial object, in the
experience of castration. The series of castrations postulated by Freud: weaning,
sphincter training, castration properly speaking, renders this experience in its
repetition, in its recurrence, signifying and structuring.

而且，当影响到这个原初客体的这个欠缺被显示出来，在阉割的经验里。由弗洛伊德提出的这一系列的阉割：断奶，括约肌的训练，适当地说是阉割，使得在它的重复里的这个经验，在它的重复发生，成为能指化及结构化。

The o-object will then be that which through these experiences, is going to fall, as
Lacan says, from its position of being “exposed to the field of the Other” but in order
to attain the status of object of desire. The tribute paid to this accession is to exclude
the desiring subject from saying, from naming the object of desire.

这个客体因此将是，通过这些经验，将会掉落的东西，如拉康所说，从它被暴露到大他者的领域的立场。但是为了维持欲望客体的这个位置。对于这种认同给予的致敬，就是要排除这个欲望的客体不要说，不要命名欲望的客体。

Having being situated in the field of the Other now allows there to be conceived the
function of mediation such an object plays less between the subject and the Other but
in their relationship: my desire enters the Other where it is expected from all eternity
in the form of the object that I am in so far as it exiles me from my subjectivity by
resuming all the signifiers to which this subjectivity is attached.

由于曾经被定位在大他者的这个领域，容许仲介的功用被构想，这样一个客体扮演的角色，与其说是处于主体与大他者之间，不如说是处于它们的关系：我的欲望进入大他者，在那里，从所有的永恒理，我们期望，以「我在」的这个客体的形式，因为它将我从我的主体性放逐出来，凭借重新开始所有的能指，主体性跟它连接在一块。

We know that phantasy allows the establishment of this formula of relationship, in so
far as it reveals here the subject in effacing his trace. The phantasy as a structure
constitutive of the subject, where the latter is imprinted in the hollow, through which
fascination operates, opens the relationship of the o-object to the ideal ego.

我们知道，幻见容下这个关系的公式的建立，因为它在此显示这个主体抹除他的痕迹。这个幻见，作为主体的结构本质。在主体那里，后者被铭记在这个空洞，通过这个空洞，著迷运作，运作客体跟这个理想自我的关系。

D – The (o) as fetish 客体的物神化

This formulation indicates everything that separates the theorisation of Lacan from
that of other authors. Let us say schematically that while the latter are above all going
to mark the positive aspect of the qualities of the object Lacan valorises the negative
approach.

这个说明指示著分开拉康的理论跟其他作者的一切。让我们以基模的方式说，虽然后者特别是要标示客体的特质的正面，而拉康则是推崇负面的方法。

A clear example shows us this. Before the image of the phallic mother the
post-Freudian authors will say that she is terrifying because she is phallic. Because
the phallus can be a maleficent instrument, a destructive weapon, etc… . Freud said
that the bewilderment produced by Medusa‟s head took place because the reptiles
which took the place of hair for her denied, as many times as there were serpents,
castration and by this reversal it was recalled in a multiplied way to the one who
wanted to cancel it out.

有一个清楚的例子跟我们显示这一点。在作为阳具的母亲的意象之前，后弗洛伊德的作者将会说，她是可怕的，因为她是阳具。因为阳具有时会是一个邪恶的工具，一个毁灭的武器，等等。弗洛伊德说，由蛇髮的美杜莎的头所产生的困惑会发生，是因为蛇替代了头髮，作为她被拒绝给予多少次，就有多少的蛇，阉割。然后根据这个倒转，以多重的方式，让人回想的想要取消这个阉割的人。

Lacan is happier to follow this path. The case of fetishism to which he gives a lot of attention is the apologue of this reflective mode. The object of the fetish will be the witness, the veil of the castrated sexual organ – of the lack in the field of the Other.

拉康很乐于遵照这个途径。他给予许多专注的物神化的案例，是替这个反思的模式作辩解。物神化的客体将是这个证人，这个被阉割的性器官的面纱，大他者的领域的这个欠缺。

E – The (o) object of lack, cause of desire 欠缺的客体，欲望的原因

In connection with his seminar on the Symposium there appears with a particular force
the metonymical and metaphorical structure of the o-object in the mapping out that
Lacan gives in Plato‟s text about the particular position of the agalmata, in the
discourse of Alcibiades where the latter depicts Socrates: “He is just like the silenuses
that one sees in sculptors‟ lofts which the artist represent as holding a pipe or a flute;
if you open the middle of them you see that within they contain little figurines of
gods”.

有关他论柏拉图的会饮篇的研讨班，出现时具有一个特别的力量。这个客体的换喻与比喻的结构，拉康在柏拉图的文本里，给予的描绘，关于这个「贡物」的特别的立场，在阿西比底斯的论述里。在那里，后者描述苏格拉底：「

We are dealing both with fragments of the body, with a part of the body and its
symbolisation and this is to be taken literally, in the form of a divine figurine.
It is precisely in so far as this o-object is going to emerge as objective lack that it is
going to be deployed in a double register which will be at once the revelation of the
lack of the Other and also of the lack as it appears in the process of meaning.

我们正在处理身体的这些碎片，带着身体的一部分及它的象征。这应该以实质来处理，以一个神的肖像的形式。确实是当这个客体将要出现，作为客体的欠缺，它将要以一种双重的铭记被被运用。这双重铭记既是大他者的欠缺的启示，也是这个欠缺的启示，当它出现在意义的过程。

What is lacking to the Other is what cannot be conceived of. The (-phi) which is introduced here in the shape of what does not appear – it is the Nothing which cannot be pictured – in which there is ordered the encounter with castration as unthinkable, whose hiatus is filled with the processes of meaning, by the mirage of knowledge. I quote again: “(o) symbolises that which in the sphere of the signifier as lost is lost to meaning. What resists this loss is the subject designated once the processes of knowledge come into play, once that is known, there is something lost.”

对于大他者所欠缺的东西，就是无法被构想的东西。这个负数的（-phi），在此被介绍，以所没有出现的形状。那就是「空无」无法被描绘。在这个空无里，跟阉割的遭遇被规范秩序，作为不可思议。我再一次引述：括弧的客体象征在能指的这个球形，作为丧失意义的丧失的东西。抗拒这种丧失的东西，就是被指明的主体，一旦知识的过程运作起来，一旦那件事情被知道，就有某件东西丧失。

It is this apparition in the shape of the object of lack which specifies what our presentation is going to revolve around, namely the non-specularisable nature of the (o).

就是欠缺的这个客体的形状的这个魅影，指明我们的呈现，将会环绕它旋转的东西。换句话说，这个括弧的客体，具有无法被理想魅影化的特性。

Everything happens as if the barred subject takes on the function of i(o) as Lacan puts it or again as if, shortcircuiting the impossible specularisation of lack, the subject thus identifies himself to knowledge, coming to the locus and the place of the loss which stimulates its promotion, covering over this loss to the extent of forgetting its
existence.

这一切发生，好像这个被划槓禁制的主体具有自我理想魅影的功用，如同拉康所表达。或者，好像将欠缺的不可能的自我理想魅影化，给予短路，主体因此认同自己就是知识，来到刺激它的骚动的丧失的这个轨迹及位置。掩盖住这个丧失，甚至到的忘记它的存在。

Starting from this appearance of lack, there is going to come into play the function of
the remainder issuing from the desire of the other, the function of the remainder which is manifested as a residue left by the bar, which affects the big Other and whose homologue in the subject interests him in knowledge. Here again Lacan makes a distinction of a logical order where nullifying does not suppress having, which
precisely makes the remainder appear.

从欠缺的这个表象开始，从大他者的欲望发出的这个剩余物的功用将会运作，这个剩余物的功用被证明，作为这个禁制遗留的残渣。它影响到大他者，而且它在主体身上的同质性，让他对知识感到興趣。在此，拉康再一次区别一个逻辑的秩序，在那里，使无效并没有压制拥有，这个拥有确实让这个剩余物出现。

The function of the remainder is what is saved from the menace which weighs on the
subject; “desire is constructed on the path of a question: not to be”. The o-object is
the cause of desire.

这个剩余物的功用，就是从这个威胁里拯救出来的东西。这个威胁重重压迫主体：「欲望被建构，在一个问题的途径：客体不存在」。这个客体是欲望的原因。

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