Archive for the ‘雄伯说拉康’ Category

雄伯手记 1040610

June 10, 2015

雄伯手记 1040610

西天二祖阿难说:「混噩百年,不如一日识解生灭法。」
佛陀在金刚经则说:「法尚应捨,何况非法。」

生灭法—非生灭法—非非生灭法、、、、
这个非非生灭法是数学集合的负负得正,还是依旧包含自己的负?
用黑格尔的正-反-合的辩证法来演绎,则是历史尚未终结,佛或主体,正定聚或涅槃,则有待于未来完成式的未知数X。

拉康将精神分析辞说,从主人辞说,大学辞说,癔症辞说的象征界与想像界脱离出来,朝向实在界,自成一家之言。却又不捨众生与语言故,从实在界,迴向象征界与想像界,重新集合。让精神分析家analyst从作为应该知道的主体,the subject supposed to know,成为精神分析者analyzer的欲望的客体的原因(the cause of the object of an analysis)。只是稍一不慎,就沉沦于客体的移情与反移情。拉康晚年“Etourtit”,标题为“第一迴转”First Turn与第二迴转Second Turn,即是剖白此心迹。

拉康区别能指signifier与符号sign的不同。从语言学而言,能指潜含所指the signified的预先存在,否则仅是符号。从精神分析而言,能指不仅潜藏所指the signified的预先存在,也意味着凭借从空无中创造ex-nihilo的未来完成式的主体的认同的可能。其间是能指的锁链signifying chain,会有所谓的大他者的欲望与小他者的欲望的小客体,实在界的大他者,象征界,想像界的大他者的认同锚定。最后,主体与大他者的自我理想I(O)的认同是真理?是悟道?是神?是魔?是妄想症?是偏执狂?是超越?端看你处于怎样的时间与空间的座标!

弗洛依德在“超越快乐原则”的“论受虐狂”章,将快乐原则pleasure principle,定位在“要求“demand的”现实原则“reality principle”的象征界。定义是“生理与或心理的快感的张力tension程度的增加”。然后,他又发现有所谓的“nirvana principle”涅槃原则,定义是”通过生理或心理的快感张力的稳定stability,获得生命实存的极乐”但是他并没有因此取名为“痛苦原则”或“反快乐原则”,而是取名为“超越快乐原则”。这意味着,受虐狂被视为象征界的征状,却是实在界的极乐。佛教的“寂灭为乐”,圣殇图上的耶稣面相怡然欢喜。志士仁人的“鼎镬甘如贻”,皆可如是观!

拉康在 “康德avec萨德”则是发现,将快乐原则推到极致,冒着“超越现实原则”的要求的惩罚的危险,同样能到达康德的精神升华spiritual sublimation 的崇高的生命实存sublime being的原乐欢爽jouissance。象征界视之为死亡冲动“death drive”,从实在界的主体获得生命实存的极乐而言,却是生命冲动“life drive“。
电影”耶稣受难记“的英文片名是”Passion“激情。可见,”Passion“激情的定义不局限于男女情爱,对自身欢爽,家国,人生理想或宗教信仰以真诚心彻底实践,以致逾越象征界的现实原则的要求,甚至因此被象征界视为”施虐狂“或”疯狂“,召来自身的困境或灭亡。

齐泽克的“康德avec萨德“,则是将个人的施虐狂转换成为意识形态的论述。拥有集权力量者,无论是政治,商业或学术的意识形态者,将个人的实在界的生命实存,跟象征界的意识形态的固著形成锚定anchoring。将自以为的意识形态的真理强用权力施加他人,形成”善复为妖“的迫害,自身成为自虐兼施虐狂者sodo-masochism而不自觉。

前天我在拉康小组贴了一个博罗米恩环结图Borrowmean knot,上面有实在界,想像界,与实在界the real的集合,与作为圣状sinthome的第四环结的真实界。它们之间的集合形成11个空洞holes。然后各有一条直线引到外面的一个大空洞hole。若是将这些空洞隐喻为实在界,那意味着可能有11个实在界,而不仅是修远所说的6个实在界。至于这11个实在界的细部描绘,或与外部的实在界的互动关系,要详细引证与论述起来,则是一篇博硕士的大论文。修远若能深入研读,必然会大有所获。毕竟,修远作为一个针对另外一个能指代表主体,会面临客体肉身是否永恒消失或是复返的可能性。修远的肉身若仅是客体,那么修远的主体在哪里?修远的肉身之外是一个大空洞,肉身之内也是无数的空洞。这是否意味着修远的肉身的消失是死亡?还是重生?拉康使用拓扑图形,而不完全採用语言的直线逻辑的描述。目的是要我们突破平面思考的认识论,才能理解过去现在未来的时间与空间的立体3D的世界的交织的宇宙观与本体论,才能定义修远聪慧一生,是象征语言的主人或物欲奴隶的问题,修远的聪慧是否意味着神性,佛性的可能,或仅是动物性的存在?修远生活在世上的每一日的印证是什么?在仔细阅读齐泽克与拉康时,这些难道不是都是有待深入的地方吗?

拉康论庄周梦蝶 Choang-tsu’s Butterfly:

December 30, 2013

Choang-tsu’s Butterfly:

Objects and the Subjective Function of Fantasy

庄子的蝴蝶

幻见的各种客体与主体性功能

 

Calum Neill

凯拉姆、内尔

 

In the sixth chapter of The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis,

Lacan refers to the Taoist Choang-tsu’s well known parable of the

dream butterfly. Choang-tsu poses the question of how, after waking

from a dream of being a butterfly, he can tell whether he is Choang-tsu

who has woken from the dream of being a butterfly or whether he is the

butterfly now dreaming he is Choang-tsu. This article argues that Lacan’s

treatment of the parable allows us to discern two instances of fantasy;

the fantasy of being the butterfly and the fantasy of being Choangtsu.

These two instances help to demonstrate the centrality of the

process of identification to the function of fantasy and allow us to grasp

an ethical dimension entailed in one’s subjective relation to the object(s)

of fantasy.

 

在「精神分析的四个基本原则」的第六章,拉康提到道家庄子著名的蝴蝶梦的寓言。庄子提出这个问题:从作为蝴蝶的梦中醒来之后,他如何能够辨明,是否他就是从作为蝴蝶的梦中醒来的庄周,或是他是蝴蝶现在正梦见他是庄周。我的论文主张,拉康对于这个寓言的处理,让我们能够觉察两种幻见的例子:作为蝴蝶的幻见,与作为庄周的幻见。这两个例子有助于证明,认同幻见的功能的过程的中心思想,并且让我们能够理解,我们跟幻见到各种客体的主体性的关系的伦理学的维度。

From the mirror stage, we can understand the seeds of fantasy in the

subject’s self-relating as meconnaissance. That is to say, in mistaking

the wholeness perceived in the mirror as a wholeness attributable

to itself, the subject establishes the fantasy of itself as an image, or

what Lacan terms the ideal-ego. Central to this process of (mis)identification

is the mechanism of seeing and, inseparable from this, being seen. In

the terminology of later Lacan, this is elaborated under the concept of the

gaze. Through his discussion of the gaze as objet petit a in Seminar XI and,

in particular, through his treatment of Choang-tsu’s famous paradox of the

dream of the butterfly, Lacan allows us to apprehend what we might call the

properly subjective function of the fantasy.

 

从镜像阶段,我们能够理解幻见的各种种因,在主体的自我指涉,作为是误识。换句话说,当他误认在镜中感受到的整体,作为是归属于镜子本身的整体时,主体建立属于它自身的幻见,作为一种形象,或是拉康术语所谓的理想自我。作为认同(或误认)的这个过程的核心,是看见与被看见的心理机制。看见与被看见是不可分割的。用晚期拉康的术语来说,这个心理机制被建构在凝视的观念之下。通过在第11研讨班,凝视作为小客体的讨论,特别是,通过他处理庄子的著名的蝴蝶梦的悖论,拉康让我们理解,我们所谓的幻见的合适的主体性的功能是什么。

61

 

Waking from a dream in which he experienced himself as a butterfly,

Choang-tsu poses himself the question of how he can be certain that he is

now himself, Choang-tsu, and not the butterfly dreaming that he is Choangtsu.

 

当庄子从梦中醒来,他在梦里经验到自己作为蝴蝶,庄子跟自己提出这个问题:他如何能够确定,他现在是他自己,庄周,而不是蝴蝶正在梦见他是庄周。

 

Put simply, Choang-tsu’s dilemma can be phrased as that of how we can

know which self is the “real” or authentic self and which self is an illusory,

“invented,” dream version.

 

简言之,庄子的困境能够被诠释为这样的困境:我们如何能够知道哪一个自性是「实在的」或真诚的自性,那一个自性的幻觉的自性,是「被杜撰的」的梦的版本。

 

This should also, perhaps, remind us of the classical

Cartesian quandary as to how he, Descartes, can know he is not dreaming

when he is “in fact” awake (14). Where Descartes, to an extent, circumvents

this problem, leading to the conclusion that, even if he is the dream

version, this in itself is indicative of a real Descartes beyond the dream insofar

as the dream “copy” necessitates an original from which it is abstracted

(15), Lacan’s treatment is a little more involved. For Lacan, Choang-tsu

is correct to pose himself this question for two reasons.

 

或许,这应该让我们想起这个经典的笛卡尔的困境,关于笛卡尔,他如何知道,他并不是在作梦,当他「实际上」是清醒的时刻。笛卡尔有几分程度是规避这个难题,而导致这个结论:即使他是梦的版本,这本身也指示著一位超越梦之外的实在的笛卡尔。因为梦的「抄本」必须先要有原版。从原版那里,梦的抄本才能被抽离出来。拉康的处理则是稍微更加深入。就拉康而言,庄子是正确的,当他替自己提出这个问题。理由有两个:

 

First, taking such a

question seriously indicates that one has not fallen so under the sway of the

master signifier as to have foreclosed one’s own division; that is, one does

not assume that one is adequate to one’s perceptions of oneself. In fact, one

does not assume one is one: “When Choang-tsu wakes up, he may ask himself

whether it is not the butterfly who dreams that he is Choang-tsu. Indeed

he is right, and doubly so, first because it proves he is not mad, he does not

regard himself as absolutely identical with Choang-tsu” (Lacan, Four Fundamental

Concepts 76).

首先,将这个问题认真看待指示著:我们并没有完全受到主人能指的影响,以致于将自己的分裂除权弃绝。换句话说,我们并没有假设,我们对自己的各种感觉充分满意。事实上,我们并没有假设一就是一:「当庄周醒来时,他可能询问他自己,是否是蝴蝶梦见他是庄周。的确,有两个理由,他是正确的。首先是因为它证明:他没有疯狂,他没有认为他自己是绝对地认同庄周(拉康:精神分析的四个基本原则 第76页)

 

In addition to this, the question Choang-tsu poses to himself holds within

it a certain truth of Choang-tsu. In a sense, he is the butterfly. The butterfly,

in Lacan’s reading, cannot be reduced to some mere chimera, an arbitrary

construct of Choang-tsu’s dream-state. On the contrary, it is as dream

butterfly that Choang-tsu was able to grasp something of his own identity,

namely “that he was, and is, in his essence, that butterfly who paints himself

with his own colours” (76).

 

除此之外,庄子对自己提出的这个问题,在问题之内,包含着庄子的某种真理。从某个意义来说,他就是蝴蝶。拉康的阅读是,蝴蝶无法被还原成为是某种神话中的狮头,羊身,蛇尾的吐火女怪物,由庄子的梦中的状态的任意建造。相反地,作为梦中的蝴蝶,庄子才能够理解某件属于他自己身份的东西。也就是说,他以前是那只蝴蝶,现在的本质也是那只蝴蝶,用他自己的各种颜色彩绘他自己的那只蝴碟。

 

For Lacan, it is through this penetration of

the unconscious that something of Choang-tsu can emerge, as opposed to

some social construct or status known as Choang-tsu. This can be reformulated

in terms of the relation of the subject to the signifier. What we have in

the parable of Choang-tsu are two signifiers, “Choang-tsu” and “butterfly.”

 

对于拉康,就是通过这种无意识的贯穿,庄子的某件东西才会出现。作为相对于某种大名鼎鼎的庄子社会的建构,或 社会地位。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

The subject, in the proper Lacanian sense, of the parable is that which is represented

between these two signifiers. Phrased otherwise, the subject of the

parable is placed under these two signifiers:

Choang-tsu butterfly

 

从恰当的拉康的意义而言,这个寓言的主体是有这两个能指之间所代表的东西。用不同方式来诠释,这个寓言的主体被放置在这两个能指之下:庄周-蝴蝶。

 

 

It is, however, actually only in the movement between them that the subject

proper emerges.

 

可是,主体的本体的出现,确实并不是仅是在这两个能指之间。

 

The difference here, for Lacan, between the dream and “reality” is attested to by the mechanism of representation. In the dream the subject is represented

as a butterfly, thus confirming something of his subjective apperception.

 

对于拉康而言,在此,梦与现实界之间的差异,由再现表象的机制来测试。在梦中,主体再现作为蝴蝶,因此证实他的主体的过去经验感觉的某件东西。

 

Outside the dream, the subject is represented as Choang-tsu but

feels it necessary to question this representation. This logic of uncertainty is

in itself what points towards the subjective truth of the situation. As a butterfly,

the subject does not pose the same question as when he is awake:

“when I am not this dream butterfly, when I am awake, am I actually this

dream butterfly?”

 

在梦的外贸,主体由庄周来再现,但是感觉到有必要质疑这个再现。不确定的这个逻辑的本身就是指向情境的主体性。作为蝴蝶,主体并没有像他在清醒时提出这个问题:「当我不是这个梦的蝴蝶,当我清醒时,我是否确实就是这只蝴蝶?」

 

Lacan’s explanation here and thus his conclusion is that,

as dream butterfly, the subject is but his own representation whereas as

Choang-tsu, he is a social representation:

 

拉康在此的解释,因此他的结论是:作为梦中蝴蝶,主体仅是他的再现表象,而作为庄周,他的社会的再现表象。

 

when he is the butterfly, the idea does not occur to him to wonder

whether, when he is Choang-tsu awake, he is not the butterfly that he

is dreaming of being. This is because, when dreaming of being the

butterfly, he will no doubt have to bear witness later that he represented

himself as a butterfly. But this does not mean that he is captivated

by the butterfly – he is a captive butterfly, but captured by nothing,

for, in the dream, he is a butterfly for nobody. It is when he is

awake that he is Choang-tsu for others, and is caught in their butterfly

net. (76)

 

当他是蝴蝶时,他并没有想到这个观念,想要知道,当他是清醒时的庄周,他是否并不是他梦见生命实存的蝴蝶。这是因为,当他梦见成为蝴蝶时,他无可置疑地后来必须见证,他再现他自己的表象,作为蝴蝶。但是,这并不意味着,他被蝴蝶著迷—他成为蝴蝶的俘虏,而是他被空无补获,因为他在梦中,他是针对无人的蝴蝶。当他清醒时,他是庄周,那是针对其他人而言,而且他被他们的蝴蝶的网网住。

 

The point we can extract from Lacan’s reading of this parable is that the subject,

∃, cannot be reduced to either instance; neither butterfly nor Choangtsu.

Neither, however, is the subject properly some entity outwith the two

instances. The subject is not the property of, a pure effect of, the symbolic

order – here that which is fixed under the signifier Choang-tsu – nor can

the subject be reduced to a pure effect of itself (beyond or outwith the

signifying realm).

 

我们能够从拉康对于这个寓言的阅读抽离出这一点是,主体无法被简化成为任何一个例子,他既不是蝴蝶,也不是庄周。可是,在这两个例子之外,主体既不是恰当的某个实体。主体并不是象征界秩序的的特性,纯粹的结果—在此,被固定在庄子这个能指之下的东西。主体也不会被化简成为它的本身的纯粹的结果(超越或外在于能指的领域之外。)

雄伯译

 

In this sense, following IiIek (46), we could understand the dream (and

its content) as the fantasy of the subject wherein the butterfly constitutes the

(representative of the) object: (∃& butterfly). IiIek writes, “In the symbolic

reality he was Zhuang Zi [Choang-tsu], but in the real of his desire he was

a butterfly. Being a butterfly was the whole of his positive being outside the

symbolic network” (46).

 

从这个意义言,跟随着李列克,我们能够理解这个梦及其内容,作为是主体的幻见。在那里,蝴蝶形成客体的再现表象:李列克写的,「在象征的现实界,他说庄周,但是在他的欲望的实在界,他是蝴蝶。成为蝴蝶是在象征的网络之外的他的强烈生命实存的整体。」

 

What IiIek’s interpretation occludes is the fact

that, despite the impossibility of inverting the terms of the dream/fantasy to

which IiIek correctly attests, the parable does contain two instances of fantasy.

 

李列克的诠释阻塞的东西是这个事实:尽管不可能倒转李列克正确地测试的梦与幻见的这些术语,这个寓言确实包含两个幻见的例子。

 

While only one instance can, as Lacan confirms, be understood as a

dream, fantasy is not reducible to dream states – we fantasize when awake

and the unconscious continues to pulsate when awake.

 

依照拉康的证实,虽然仅有一个例子能够被理解,作为梦。幻见并没有被化简成为就是梦的状态。我们清醒时,会有幻见。当我们清醒时,无意识继续悸动。

 

While clearly, in accordance

with IiIek’s reading, the butterfly is a fantasized representation of

the subject such that it can be represented as ∃& butterfly, the parable also

contains the fantasy of being Choang-tsu; ∃& Choang-tsu.

 

遵照李列克的阅读,蝴蝶显而易见是主体的幻见的再现表象,以致于它能够被再现作为庄周与蝴蝶,这个寓言也包含成为庄周的幻见。

 

 

What is significant

in the parable in terms of the light it casts on the notion of fantasy is

that by raising and posing the question of his own identity and, in Lacan’s

words, in “not fully understand[ing] how right he is” (Four Fundamental

Concepts 76), Choang-tsu points us towards the impossibility of the subject

in either position. The subject is that aphanisic point of its own departure;

the subject is nothing but its own division.

 

用它投射在幻见的光的术语来说,寓言的重要的内容是,凭据提出他自己的认同的这个问题,用拉康的术语说,凭借并没有充分理解他正确的什么程度,庄子跟我们指向主体不可能处于任何的一个立场。主体是它自己离开的主体消失的点;主体仅是它自己的分裂。

 

In this sense the fantasy embodies a relation to some thing or image

which functions as the objet petit a and thus protects the subject from the

(im)possibility of the traumatic encounter with the Real by masking or obfuscating

the site of the lack in the symbolic order. At the same time, and in

a sense it is but a different perspective on the same function, the fantasy

serves to protect the subject from the jouissance of the Real by providing a

surrogate, fantasized, sense of unity.

 

从这个意义言,幻见具体表现跟某个物象或意象的关系。它们充当这个小客体,因此保护主体免于跟实在界遭遇的这个可能或不可能。因为它们遮蔽或阻碍在象征的秩序的欠缺的这个地点。同时,幻见充当保护主体免于实在界的这种欢爽,凭借提供一种代理,幻见的一致性的意义。

 

Through the mode of fantasy we can perceive the mechanism of desire

at work. The objet petit a, as that which causes desire, can be understood to

stand in for the unity we would wish to achieve. In both scenarios posed in

the parable, as we have seen, there is something of an imagined sense of unity

at work; I am the butterfly or I am Choang-tsu. In a sense, the psychoanalytic

“reality” is both attested to and negated in both versions – I am neither

the butterfly nor Choang-tsu but I am positioned in response to my conceptualization

of myself as the butterfly and Choang-tsu.

 

经由幻见的模式,我们感觉欲望运作的机制。小客体,作为是引起欲望的东西,能够被理解是代表我们希望获得的一致性。在这个寓言提出的两个剧本,如同我们曾经看见的,有某件被想象的一致性在运作的意义。我「是」蝴蝶,或我「是」庄子。从某个意义来说,精神分析的「现实界」在这两个版本里,既被测试,也被否定。我既不是蝴蝶,也不是庄周。但是我的立场是要回应我对我自己的概念化,作为是蝴蝶与庄周。

 

The truth of the

subject is the mark of desire inscribed in both fantasies. The Lacanian point

here would thus not be that the dream can be equated to fantasy and the waking

state could not, but rather that both dream and waking state attest to the

same fundamental fantasy, albeit in necessarily different modes.

 

主体的真理是,欲望被铭记在两种幻见的标记。拉康在此的观点,因此将不会是:梦有时相等于是幻见,而清醒的状态不能够等于是幻见。相反地,拉康的观点是:梦与清醒的时刻都测试相同的基本的幻见,虽然用必须是不同的方式。

 

As noted above, the fact that the Other is lacking points to the necessary

or constitutive lack in the subject. In encountering the Other as lacking,

the subject should be seen as not so much encountering the void of the Real,

but rather that point on the signifying chain which is indicative of the existence

of this void.

 

如上面注意到的,大他者欠缺的这个事实,指向主体的必然欠缺或构成本质的欠缺。当主体遭遇作为欠缺的大他者时,主体应该被看待,作为并不是遭遇到实在界的空无,相反地,而是遭遇到能指化锁链的那个点,能指化的锁链指示著这个空无的存在。

 

This allows us to understand the subject as resorting to

or finding support in fantasy as a veil for this lacking both in the Other, the

symbolic field, and in the subject itself. It is as such that the object of fantasy,

that in relation to which the subject places itself in fantasy, constitutes

the cause of subjective desire and thus constitutes the subject proper as subject

of desire. Without the function of fantasy the subject would fail to mobilize

itself.

 

这让我们能够理解主体,作为是诉诸于,或找到幻见的支撑,作为是遮蔽在大他者,象征界,与主体自身的这个欠缺。作为这样的欠缺,幻见的客体,就形成主体欲望的原因,因此形成主体的本体,作为是欲望的主体。主体将自己放置于幻见,作为是跟客体的幻见相关。假如没有幻见到这个功能,主体将没有办法动员自己。

 

That is to say, it would not properly be (a) subject: “in its fundamental

use, the fantasy is the means by which the subject maintains him-

self at the level of his vanishing desire, vanishing inasmuch as the very satisfaction

of demand deprives him of his object” (Lacan, “Direction of the

Treatment” 532).

 

换句话说,合宜地说,这并不是一个主体:「在体基本地使用,幻见是这个工具,主体凭借用来维持他自己,处于逐渐消失的欲望的层次,逐渐消失,因为要求的这个满意,让他丧失他的客体。」(拉康:治疗的方向,532页)

 

The castration of the subject, the dividing and alienating

effect of the symbolic order as it functions at one and the same time to allow

the possibility of the subject and to deny the subject the coherence it

might (impossibly) have otherwise enjoyed, is attested to in the intercession

of Demand. The desire which then arises as one effect of this intercession is

caused, set in motion, by the object of fantasy.

 

主体的阉割,象征秩序的区分与异化的结果,当它同时地发挥功能,让主体有存在的可能,并且拒绝给予主体,它否则可能(或不可能)享受到的一致性。主体的阉割被证实,

在「要求界」的介入时。因此而产生的欲望,作为是这个介入的一个结果,被幻见到客体所引起,所触动。

 

But this object, attesting as it

does to the state before castration, before the intercession of demand, is

never actually available to be attained. Fantasy is thus the mode whereby the

subject can “flirt” with the (semblance of the) object in a relatively secure

manner. In this sense, fantasy can be understood as the provision of a surrogate

jouissance which, as surrogate, serves to guard the subject against Real

jouissance by masking the lacking point in the symbolic network which is

indicative of the (possibility) of the emergence of the Real.

 

但是这个客体,因为它证实阉割之前的状态,在要求界的介入之前的状态,这个客体从来没有确实地可利用来获得。幻见因此是这个模式,主体凭借幻见,来跟客体的类似无「调情」,用比较安全的方式。幻见能够被理解,作为是提供一个代理欢爽。作为代理欢爽,它充当用来防护主体,对抗实在界的欢爽,凭借遮蔽在象征网络的这个欠缺点,。它指示著实在界的出现的这个可能性。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

自闭症与童年精神错乱 03

August 27, 2012

自闭症与童年精神错乱 03

Conceptual foundations for diagnosis

A minimum of four terms is needed to map and describe any clinical phenomenon:

Sv the master signifier, or signifier of the subject (although originated in the field of the Other);

S2, the signifier of the Other, or signifying chain less the Sx;

$, the subject, necessarily divided, an effect of the signifying chain: that which is represented by a signifier for another signifier; and

a, the object cause of desire, which represents the function of plus-de-jouir (surplus enjoyment) and a localization of jouissance.

 

诊断的观念的基础

最小量需要有四个术语,来描绘及描述任何临床的现象:

S1是主人能指,或主体的能指指,(虽然是起源于大他者的领域),

S2是大他者的能指,或小于主人能指S1的能指的锁链,

$ 这个必然是分裂的主体,能指锁链的一种情意,作为一个能指对于另外一个能指,所被代表的情意,

a 是欲望客体的原因,代表过剩享乐的这个功能,及欢爽的局部化。

These are the four constitutive terms of what Lacan called discourse, or social bond, that defines the position of the subject even before he utters any statement. Each of the four discourses posited by Lacan represents a particular combination of these four terms, which occupy places that are invariant:

Agent               other

     —————-

truth              production

 

有四种的建构的术语,拉康称为是辞说,或是社会契约。它定义主体的位置,甚至在他发表任何的陈述之前。这四个辞说的每一个,由拉康提出,代表这四个术语的一个特别的组合。这些术语佔据一成不变的位置。

 

              代理者                他者

                      ——————

               真理                 产物

 

 

In this sense of the term, discourse, Lacan says that the psychotic is outside discourse (hors discours); but the psychotic is not outside language. In addition – and this is particularly relevant to a discussion of the psychoses and autism – any diagnostic account must consider the vicissitudes of the specular relation, for which three more terms, that are not directly represented in the matheme of the discourse, are necessary: i(o), the image of the specular other, or small other; i'(o), the ego; and I, the ego-ideal. The Schema L of Lacan, as presented in his seminar on the psychoses, is the basis of subsequent elaborations on these terms:

(Es)S ———-(o’i)other

(ego)————- @ Other

Figure 2: Schema L Source: Lacan (1993), Book III, p. 14.

这个术语的这个意义,辞说,拉康说,这个精神错乱者是在辞说外面。但是这个精神错乱者并没有在语言外面。除外,这是特别关系到精神错乱及自闭症的讨论。任何诊断的描述必须考虑到这个魅影关系的起伏变化。对于它们,还有三个术语。这些术语并不是直接被代表,在辞说的数学公式里。它们是需要的理想自我i(o),魅影的他者的意象,或是小他者i’o , 这个自我ego,及这个I, 自我理想。拉康的这个L的基模,在他的论精神错乱的研讨班被呈现,是有关这些术语的随后的建构的基础。

The imaginary axis is improperly constituted in psychosis, and virtually absent in the case of autism. While the symbolic order is the support of the imaginary, there is no proper access to the symbolic without the intermediation of the imaginary. The subject’s encounter with a ‘bare’ signifier without an imaginary cover (a signifier reduced to being something real) has the uncanny, enigmatic effect that the psychotic subject typically reports.

在精神错乱里,想象界的枢纽不适当地被形成。在自闭症的案例,它几乎是欠缺的。虽然符号象征的秩序是这个想象界的支持,它并没有适当的接近这个符号象征,而不受到想象界的仲介。主体跟一个「赤裸的」的能指的邂逅,必然会涵盖想象界 (一个能指被还原成为某件实在界的东西)。这种邂逅拥有神秘的谜团一般的效应,精神错乱的主体典型报导有这样的效应。

雄伯说

拉康的精神错乱的L模式,我无法张贴图形,希望有人能帮忙!

是一个实线三角形跟一个虚线三角形的倒转,而形成四角形。

The subject is constituted as such through the two operations of alienation and separation. The concept of alienation refers not so much to the fact that the subject is already determined in the field of the Other, even before his birth, through his name, position in the kinship system and the family, the family myths and the whole symbolic universe that precedes him, but rather to his determination by the binary structure of the signifier. A signifier represents the subject, but for another signifier:

主体本身被构成,通过异化与分离的这两个运作。异化的观念并不是提到这个事实:主体已经被决定,在大他者的领域,,甚至在他出生以前,通过他的名字,他在亲属关系及家庭的地位,这个家庭神话及在他之前存在的符号象征宇宙。相反地,而是提到他受到能指的二元结构的决定。能指代表这个主体,但是对于另外一个能指。

S1 ——— S2

—-

$

 

The operation of alienation constitutes the subject as subject of language. The operation of separation is necessary for the constitution of the subject as subject of discourse:

异化的这个运作组成这个主体作为语言的主体。分离的这个运作是必须的,对于主体的形成作为辞说的主体。

S1———S2

—-    —–

$       a

The object a effects the separation (hence its designation as a ‘separator’ or ‘separating object’). As Colette Soler has argued, the separation in question does not separate the subject from the object, but from the signifying chain – from the Other, in so far as the Other represents the signifying chain (Soler, 1990, pp. 9-24):

客体a 造成分离的结果 (因此指明它作为一种「分离者」或「分离的客体」。如同科雷特、索勒曾经主张,受到质疑的这个分离,并没有将主体跟客体分离,而是跟能指化的锁链分离—跟大他者分离。因为大他者代表这个能指化的锁链。

$ alienated 被划杠的主体异化

$ separated 被划杠的主体分离

The object falls from the other

客体从大他者掉落

Figure 3: The object falls from the Other Source: Soler (1990), pp. 9-24.

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

超越现实原则 05

August 11, 2012

超越现实原则 05

Beyond the “Reality Principle”

 

 

雅克、拉康

Jacques Lacan

 

The Object of Psychology Is Defined in Essentially Relativistic Terms

 

心理学的对象被定义,用基本上是相对的术语

 

It is in the specific reality of interpersonal relations that a psychology can define

its own object and its method of investigation. The concepts implied by this

object and this method are not subjective, but relativistic. Although they are

anthropomorphic in their foundations, these concepts can develop into general

forms of psychology, assuming their abovementioned extension to animal

psychology proves valid.

 

雄伯译

 

就是在人际之间的这个明确的现实界,心理学能够定义它自己的客体及它的研究方法。

这个客体跟这个方法暗示的这些观念并不是主观性,而是相对性。

虽然这它们的基础,它们是拟人化,这些观念能够发展成为心理学的一般形式,假定它们以上提到的延伸到动物心理学证明是正确的。

 

雄伯说

 

拉康认为这些观念不是主观性subjective,而是相对性。

相对性relativistic 跟客观性objective又有什么差别?

 

Furthermore, the objective value of a form of research is demonstrated like

the reality of motion is demonstrated: by the efficacy of its progress. What

best confirms the excellence of the pathway that Freud defined by which to

approach the phenomenon, with a purity that distinguished him from all other

psychologists, is the prodigious advance that gave him a lead on all others in

psychological reality.

 

而且,研究形式的客观的价值被证明,就像动力的现实界根据它的进展的有效性来证明。

什么最能肯定弗洛伊德定义的途径的优越性?

凭借这个途径来探究这个现象,是这个巨大的进步,让他在心理学的现实界,领先所有其他的人。

弗洛伊德定义的这个途径,动机纯净,让他跟所有其他的心理学家不同。

 

I will demonstrate this in part two of this article. I will simultaneously show

the felicitous use he was able to make of the notion of the image. And if, with

the term “imago,” he did not fully extract it from the confused state of everyday

intuition, he nevertheless masterfully exploited its concrete importance,

preserving the entirety of its informationalfunction in intuition, memory, and

development.

 

雄伯译

 

我将在文章的第二部分证明这点。

我将同时显示弗洛伊德对于这个形象的观念,使用得恰到好处。

使用形象的这个术语,他并没有从日常的直觉的混乱的状态,充分地 抽取它。

可是,他掌控地利用它的具体的重要性,保存它在直觉,记忆,及发展的资讯功能的完整性。

 

雄伯说

区别形象与直觉的关系。

 

He demonstrated this function in discovering through analytic experience

the process of identification. The latter is quite different from the process of

imitation, which is distinguished by its partial and groping form of approximation;

identification contrasts with imitation not simply as the global assimilation

of a structure but as the virtual assimilation of development implied by

that structure in a still undifferentiated state.

 

雄伯译

他证明这个功能,当他凭借精神分析经验,发现认同的这个过程。

认同完全不同于模仿的过程。

模仿是根据它的部分而且是模索的近似的形态,被区别出来。

认同跟模仿对比起来,不仅是作为结果的全球性同化,而且作为发展的虚拟同化。

在那个结构尚处于没有被区别的状态,所暗示的发展。

 

雄伯说

Global assimilation 完全同化,全球性同化

Virtual assimilation 潜在同化,虚拟同化

认同跟同化息息相关。

模仿仅是部分形态的模仿。

 

 

We thus know that a child perceives certain affective situations—for example,

the particular bond between two individuals in a group—with far more

immediate perspicacity than an adult. An adult, despite his greater psychical

differentiation, is in fact inhibited both in human knowledge and in the conduct

of his relationships by conventional categories that censor them. But the

absence of these categories serves a child less in permitting him to better perceive

the signs than the primal structure of his psyche serves him in immediately

imbuing him with the essential meaning of the situation. But this is no

the whole of his advantage: along with the significant impression, it also brings

with it the germ, which it will develop in all its richness, of the social interaction

that is expressed in it.

 

我们因此知道,小孩感觉某些情感的情境—譬如,在团体,两个个人之间的特别默契,比起成年人,他们具有更加当下的敏锐性。

 

成年人,尽管拥有较大的心理的差异,事实上是被潜抑,不论是在人类的知识,或是在他的关系的行为,凭借审查它们的传统的范畴。

 

但是这些范畴的欠缺,对于小孩功用不大,因而让他能够更佳地感觉这些符号,比起他的心理的原初的结构,提供的功能,用这个情境的基本意义充满他。

 

但是这还不是他的全部利益,它也带给他在里面被表达的社会互动的这个种子。这个种子将会丰富地发展,

 

雄伯说

这个社会互动的种子the germ of the social interaction,以后会形成社会契约social bond。使精神分析辞说不会永远朝着实在界的空洞倾斜,而回转到符号界。

 

This is why a man’s character can include an identification with a parental

feature that disappeared before the time of his earliest memories.

 

What is transmittedby the psychical pathway are traits that give the individual the particular

form of his human relations, in other words, his personality. But what man’s

behavior thus reflects are not simply these traits, which nevertheless are often

 

among the most hidden, but the current situation in which the parent, who

was the object of the identification, found himself when the identification

occurred—for example, in a situation of conflict or of inferiority in the married

couple.

 

这就是为什么人的人格会包括认同于父母的特征。

这个特征在他的最早的记忆的时代消失。

这个心理途径所传递的东西是这些特征。

这些特征给予个人属于他的人际关系的这个特别的形式,换句话说,他的人格。

但是人的行为因此反映的东西,并不仅是这些特征,而是这目前的这个情境。。

这些特征往往是最被隐藏的特征之一。

在这个情境里,父母是认同的目标。

可是,当认同发生时,父母发现他们自己,譬如,会处于冲突或自卑的状态,在婚姻的关系里。

 

雄伯说

在婚姻关系里,父母本身处于冲突状态,经济,权力,能力处于劣势者必然产生自卑心理,必然也会影响到小孩的人格的认同与成长。

 

 

The result of this process is that man’s individual behavior bears the mark

of a certain number of typical psychical relations in which a certain social structure

is expressed, at the very least the constellation within that structure that

especially dominates the first years of his childhood.

 

雄伯译

 

这种过程的结果是,人的个人的行为带有某些典型的心理关系的标记。

在这些标记里,某个社会的结果被表达。

至少,在那个结构里面的这个背被被表达。

这个结构里的背景特别支配着他的童年的前几年。

 

雄伯说

 

Constellation 可指天空的星座,这里指的是社会结构里,小孩的成长背景。

拉康常用这个constellation术语,强调小孩的心理关系,跟成长背景息息相关。

 

 

These fundamental psychical relations have been revealed in analytic experience

and defined by analytic theory with the term “complexes.” We should

see in this term the most concrete, fruitful concept that has been contributed

to the study of human behavior, as opposed to the concept of instinct which,

up until the former’s introduction, had proven to be as inadequate in this field

as it was sterile. Although analytic doctrine has, in fact, related complexes to

instincts, it seems that the theory is better clarified by the former than it is supported

by the latter.

 

雄伯说

 

这些基本的心理关系,在精神分析经验里,曾经被揭露出来。

它们被精神分析理论用「情结」的术语定义。

我们应该在这些术语里看出,最具体而有成果的观念。

这个观念曾经被贡献给人类行为的研究,作为跟本能的观念相提并论。

在精神分析领域,「情结」这个观念被介绍之前,本能的这个观念证明不够充分,因为它的贫瘠的。

虽然精神分析信条实际上,将情结与本能相提并论,精神分析理论似乎更加凭借前者澄清,胜过于它受到后者支持。

 

雄伯说

情结与本能都是弗洛伊德的术语。如何区别?

伊狄浦斯是情结,而死亡却是本能。

拉康则是将死亡本能death instinct改成死亡冲动death drive。

 

 

90

It is through the pathway of the complex that the images that inform the

broadest units of behavior are instated in the psyche, images with which the

subject identifies one after the other in order to act out, as sole actor, the drama

of their conflicts. This comedy, which is situated by the genius of the species

under the sign of laughter and tears, is a commedia dell’arte in that each individual

improvises it and makes it mediocre or highly expressive depending on

his gifts, of course, but also depending on a paradoxical law that seems to show

the psychical fecundity 丰饶of all vital insufficiency.

 

雄伯译

 

通过这个情结的途径,告知行为的最广泛单位的这些形象,被安置在心理。

主体陆续地认同这些形象,为了要演出它们冲突的这个戏剧,作为单一的演员。

这种喜剧被剧作家的天才定位在欢笑与泪水的迹象之下。

这种喜剧是即兴喜剧,因为每个人即兴创作,平铺直叙或是高潮迭起,不仅是当然端赖个人天份,而是端赖一个矛盾的法则。

这个矛盾的法则似乎显示:所有的生命力虽有不足,在心理的层面却是丰饶。

 

雄伯说

 

commedia dell’arte 即兴喜剧是十六世纪,流行于义大利的一种野台喜剧,演员戴着面具,根据剧本即兴演出。

 

拉康强调的却是它的矛盾法则:所有的生命力虽有不足,在心理的层面却是丰饶。

 

这用来形容实际人生真是再贴切不过:戴着面具演出,尽管每个人的生命,都力有不贷,但是心理层面的欢笑与泪水,却个个丰饶。

 

 

It is a commedia dell’arte in the sense that it is performed in accordance with a typical framework and traditional roles. One can recognize in it the very characters that have typified

folklore, stories, and theater for children and adults—the ogre, the bogeyman,

the miser, and the noble father—that complexes express in more scholarly

terms. We will see the figure of harlequin in an image to which the second

part of this article will lead us.

 

雄伯译

 

这个即兴喜剧的意义,在于它依照一个典型的架构及传统的角色演出。

我们能够在里面体认出这些人物。他们将民间传说,故事,及小孩与成年人的戏剧典型化:

吃人女魔,毒鞭老头,守财奴,好爸爸。

我们也能够在里面体认出:情结以更加卖弄学问的术语表达。

我将会在一种形象里,看出小丑的这个人物。

这篇文章的第二部分将会引导我们到达这个形象。

 

雄伯说

 

人生如即兴喜剧,里面的人物各有其情结要演出,守财奴,好爸爸,或小丑。

 

 

 

Beyond the “Reality Principle” 73

 

After having highlighted Freud’s phenomenologically acquired knowledge, I

now turn to a critique of his metapsychology. It begins, precisely, with the

introduction of the notion of “libido.” Freudian psychology, propelling its

induction with an audacity that verges on recklessness, claims to move from

interpersonal relations, isolating them as determined by our culture, to the

biological function that is taken to be their substratum; it locates this function

in sexual desire.

 

雄伯译

 

在强调弗洛伊德根据现象学所获得的知识之后,我现在转向他对于元心理学的批判。

他对于元心理学的批判确实开始于对力比多的观念的介绍。

弗洛伊德的心理学,推动力比多的推论,大胆到近乎不顾一切。

它宣称从人际之间的各种关系前进,将这些关系孤立出来,作为是受到我们文化的决定。

然后,它进展到这个生物的功能。这个生物的功能被认为是它们的次级层次。

它定位这个功能在性的欲望。

 

雄伯说

 

现象学与元心理学有什么差别?

现象学强调情结与本能,而元心理学强调力比多。

人际之间的各种关系受到文化的决定。

但是力比多是属于生物的功能,譬如性的欲望。

性的欲望要受文化的决定吗?

 

We must nevertheless distinguish between two different uses of the term

“libido,” which are constantly confounded in analytic theory: libido as an energetic

concept, regulating the equivalence of phenomena, and libido as a substantialist

hypothesis, relating the phenomena to matter.

 

可是,我们必须区别力比多这个术语的两种不同的用途。

这两种用途在精神分析理论经常让人感到混淆。

一个是力比多作为精力的观念,规范著各种现象的平衡。

另一种力比多作为实体主义的假设,将现象与物质连接起来。

 

 

I refer to the hypothesis as substantialist, and not as materialist, because

recourse to the idea of matter is but a naive, outmoded form of authentic materialism.

In any case, it is the metabolism of the sexual function in man that

Freud designates as the basis of the infinitely varied “sublimations” manifested

in his behavior.

 

我将这个假设认为是实体主义,而不是作为唯物论,因为诉诸于物质的观念仅是真诚唯物论的一种天真而过时的形式。

 

无论如何,在人身上的性的功能的新陈代谢,弗洛伊德指明,作为在人的行为被展示的变化无穷的「昇华」。

 

雄伯说

实体主义与唯物论的差别是:唯物论诉诸于物质,而实体主体诉诸于各种变化无穷的昇华。

 

问题是:各种变化无穷的昇化,是属于文化决定?还是生物精力层次?

 

I will not debate this hypothesis here, because it seems to me to lie outside

of psychology’s proper field. I will nevertheless emphasize that it is based on

a clinical discovery of essential value: a correlation that constantly manifests

itself between the exercise, type, and anomalies of the sexual function, on the

one hand, and a large number of psychical forms and “symptoms,” on the other

hand. Let me add here that the mechanisms by which the hypothesis is developed,

which are very different from those of associationism, lead to facts that

can be observationally verified.

 

雄伯说

 

我在此并不争辩这个假设,因为我觉得它位于心理学的的本土的外面。

可是,我将强调,它的基础是临床对于基本价值的发现:一种相互关系不断地展示它自己,一方面,处于性的功能的运作,类型,及异常,另一方面,处于许多的心理的形式与各种病征之间。

容我在此补充:这些机械结构导致这些能够观察验证的事实。

凭借这些机械结构,这个假设被发展。

这些机械结构跟联想主义associationism大不相同。

 

雄伯说

 

拉康在前面就批判过联想主义。他现在要开展的这些机械结构,必然是跟它划清界限。

 

In effect, if the libido theory posits, for example, that childhood sexuality

goes through an anal stage of organization and grants erotic value to the excretory

function and the excremental object alike, this interest can be observed

in the child exactly where the theory says it should be.

 

事实上,假如力比多理论提出,譬如,童年的性通过有机组织的肛门阶段,将性爱的价值给予排粪的功能,同时给粪便的客体。这个興趣能够在小孩身上被观察出来,确实就在理论说它应该所在的地方。

 

As an energetic concept, on the contrary, libido is merely the symbolic notation

for the equivalence between the dynamisms invested by images in behavior.

It is the very condition of symbolic identification and the essential entity of

the rational order, without which no science could be constituted. With this

notation, the efficacy of images—although it cannot yet be tied to a unit of

measurement, but is already provided with a positive or negative sign—can

be expressed through the equilibrium that the images establish and, in some

sense, by balancing a pair of scales.

 

相反地,作为一个能量的观念,力比多仅是符号象征的标记,作为形象在行为投注的动力结构之间的平衡。

这是符号象征的认同的情境,理性秩序的基本实体。

假如没有这个理性秩序,没有科学能够被构成。

拥有这个标记,形象的有效性,能够被表达,通过形象所建立的这个平衡。

在某种意义,它凭借一种双边的天平。

虽然这种标记尚无法跟测量的单位连成一块,但是它已经被供应一种正面或负面的符号。

 

The notion of libido in this usage is no longer metapsychological: it is the

instrument of psychology’s progress toward positive knowledge. The combination,

for example, of the notion of libidinal cathexis with a structure as concretely defined as that of the “superego,” represents—regarding both the ideal definition of moral conscience and the functional abstraction of so-called reactions of opposition and imitation—progress that can only be compared to

that provided in the physical sciences by the relationship “weight divided by

volume” when it replaced the quantitative categories heavy and light.

 

 

在这种用法,力比多的观念不再是元心理学。

这是心理学朝向实证知识的进步的工具。

譬如,力比多的渲泄的观念,跟一种结构的联合,作为具体被定义为「超我」的观念,代表一种进展。

这种进展仅能够被比喻为在物理的各种科学提供的进展。

根据重量被能量区分的这个关系。

当它取代重量与光的数量范畴。

关于道德良心的理想定义,及对立与模仿的所谓反应的功能性抽离。

 

雄伯说

 

力比多—实体主义的假设—能量主义

渲泄–肛门排粪

昇华—超我—道德良心

 

The elements of positive determination were thus introduced between psychical

realities that a relativistic definition has allowed us to objectify. This

determination is dynamic or relative to the facts regarding desire.

It was possible in this way to establish a scale for the constitution of man’s

objects of interest, and especially for those, which are prodigiously diverse,

that remain an enigma, if psychology in theory posits reality such as knowledge

constitutes it: anomalies of emotion and drive, idiosyncrasies of attraction

and repulsion, phobias and panic attacks, nostalgias and irrational wills;

personal curiosities, selective collecting, inventions of knowledge, and job

vocations.

 

实证主义的决定的因素因此被介绍,处于心理的现实界之间。

一个相对主义的定义已经让我们能够将这些心理的现实界客观化。

这个决定论是动力的,或是跟关于欲望的事实相对。

以这种方式,一种天平得以建立,来形成人的興趣的客体。

特别是那些具有巨大差异的客体,它们始终是个谜团。

假如理论的心理学提出诸如组成它的知识的现实:情感与冲动的异常,吸引与排斥的各种怪癖,恐惧与惊慌的侵袭,怀旧与非理性的意志,个人的好奇心,选择性的收集,知识的发明,及工作的职业。

 

雄伯说

实证主义—相对主义—客观化

决定论的现实与欲望的事实相对。

人的興趣的客体是一种平衡的天平。

这些客体始终是个谜团。

 

 

On the other hand, a classification of what one might call the “imaginary

posts” that constitute the personality was defined, posts which are distributed

and in which the images mentioned above as informing development—the id,

the ego, and the archaic and secondary instances of the superego—are composed

according to their types.

 

在另一方面,我们所谓的「想象界的立场」的分类被定义。

想象界的立场构成人格。

这些立场被分配。

在这些立场,以上被提到的这些形象,作为告知的发展。

这些形象被组成,依照它们的类型。

这些形象是指本我id,自我ego,以及超我这个过时而且次要的例子。

 

雄伯说

现实界有唯物论现实界,符号象征现实,心理现实界,知识现实界。

超越这些现实界,要凭借想象界的各种立场。

 

Two questions arise here: how is the reality to which man’s knowledge is

universally attuned constituted by these images, these objects of interest? And

how is the /constituted, in which the subject recognizes himself, by his typical

identifications?

 

在此产生两个问题:当人类的知识普遍性地调适于这个现实结,这个现实界如何由这些形象,興趣的这些客体构成?这个「我」如何被构成,在那里,主体体认出他自己,根据他的典型的各种认同?

 

Freud answers these two questions by again moving onto metapsychological

ground. He posits a “reality principle” whose role in his theory I propose

to critique. But before doing so, I must first examine what has been provided

by the studies that have been contributing to the new psychological science,

alongside Freud’s discipline, regarding the reality of the image and forms of

knowledge. These will constitute the two parts of my second article.

 

弗洛伊德回答这两个问题。

他再次凭借进入元心理学的场域。

他提出一个现实原则。

这个原则在他的理论扮演的角色,我建议予以批判。

但是在这样做之前,我首先必须检查这些研究已经供应什么。

这些研究一直提供贡献,对于这个新的心理科学,跟弗洛伊德的学说,关于「形象的现实与知识的形式」。

这将构成我的第二篇文章的两个部分。

 

Marienbad and Noirmoutier, August—October 1936

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

超越现实原则 04

August 11, 2012

超越现实原则 04
Beyond the Reality Principle

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

Discussion of the Objective Value of the Experience

精神分析经验的客观价值的讨论

Such is the phenomenological description that can be given of what happens
in the series of experiences that form a psychoanalysis. Some might say that
it is the work of an illusionist were the result not precisely to dispel an illusion.
Its therapeutic action, on the contrary, must be essentially defined as a
twofold movement through which the image, which is at first diffuse and broken,
is progressively assimilated with reality, in order to be progressively dissimilated
from reality, that is, restored to its proper reality. This action attests
to the efficacy of this reality.

组成精神分析的这一连串的经验里,能够被给予的现象的的描述是如此强烈。
有人甚至说,那是一位幻术师的工作,假如结果并不是要驱散一个幻术。
相反地,它的治疗的行动,基本上必须被定义为一种双重性运动。
通过这个双重性运动,这个形象,起初是充裕而破碎,现在逐渐被现实吸收。
为了逐渐从现实吸收,换句话说,为了逐渐被恢复到它的适当的现实。
这个行动证实这个现实的有效性。

雄伯说

双重性运动:一、从现实吸收 二、被现实吸收
分析家是幻术师illuionist吗?
分析者叙述的是幻术illusion吗?
现实的有效性efficacy of reality,意味着快乐原则势必屈服于它吗?
分析家的立场,是要引出分析者的快乐原则?还是驱散幻术,引导他回到现实原则?

But if it is not an illusory kind of work, then it must be a simple technique,
some will say, and as an experience it is highly unsuitable for scientific observation
since it is based on conditions that are diametrically opposed to objectivity.
For have I not just described this experience as a constant interaction
between the observer and the object? It is, in effect, in the very movement that
the subject gives it through his intention that the observer is informed of this
intention—I have even stressed the primordial nature of this pathway.
Inversely, through the assimilation that it fosters between himself and the
image, it subverts from the outset the function of this image in the subject.

但是假如它并不是一种幻术的工作,那么它一定是一种简单的技术。
有些人说,作为精神分析经验,它非常不适合于科学的观察。
因为它是以这些条件作为基础。
这些条件跟客观性恰恰对立。
我难道不是曾经描述这个精神分析经验,作为是一种不断地互动,处于观察者与客体之间?
实际上,就在这个主体给予它这个运动,通过这个意图,观察者被告知这个意图。
我甚至强调这个途径的这个原初的特性。
相反地,通过它培养的这个吸收,处于他自己与这个形象之间,它从一开头,就颠覆在主体身上,这个形象的功能。

雄伯

精神分析是幻术?还是技术?它适合于作为科学的观察吗?它具有客观性吗?
拉康描述精神分析经验,作为是处于观察者与客体之间的一种不断地互动。问题是这个客体其实也是主体。
这个意图是分析者作为主体的意图。
也就是分析家的主体跟分析者的主体在不断地互动a constant interaction。而不仅是两个客体,或是主体对客体的互动。
他们的不断互动是四元互动,而不是二元互动。这就是精神分析的原初特性。
什么是主体培养的在他自己跟形象之间的吸收?
是主体被吸收到他培养的形象里,而成为理想的自我ideal ego?
形象在主体身上的功能,原先是主体对自己的认同,被颠覆之后,变成主体对形象的认同?

Of course, he only identifies the image in the very progress of this subversion—
I have not tried to dissimulate the constitutive nature of this process.

The absence of a fixed reference in the system that is observed and the use,
for the purposes of observation, of the very subjective movement that is
eliminated everywhere else as a source of error, are challenges, it seems, to a
sound method.

雄伯译

当然,在这个颠覆的这个进展中,他仅是认同这个形象。

我并没有尝试要将这个过程的构成的特性区别出来。
在被观察到这个系统,固定指称的欠缺。
为了观察的这些目的,主观性的运动的使用,在别的地方被减少,作为是一种错误的来源。
似乎,固定指称的这个欠缺,跟主观性运动的使用,对于一种健全的方法,会成为挑战。

雄伯说

如果精神分析要成为一门科学的技术,它不能太过于使用主体性,其次它需要固定的指称。
这正是精神分析的挑战,用现代流行语来说,就是它的硬伤。

Let me also indicate the challenge to proper usage that can be seen here. In
the very case study [observation] that he provides us, can the observer hide his
personal stake in the game? The intuitions of his finds are elsewhere referred
to as delusions and we find it hard to discern from what experiences the insistence
of his perspicacity proceeds.

雄伯译

让我也指示出这个挑战,对于在此能够被看见的适当的用途。
在他提供给与我们的这个个案研究,观察者能够隐藏他个人对于遊戏的赌注吗?
他的发现物的这些直觉,在别的地方被提到,作为谵妄。
我们发现很难辨识,他的洞察的这个坚持,从什么经验继续而来?

雄伯说
这个遊戏指的是分析家与分析者的不断互动的遊戏。
观察者指的是分析家,还是分析者?他们各自隐藏个人的什么赌注?
观察者的发现物的直觉,为什么会被认为是谵妄?
观察者对于自己的洞察力,为什么那么坚持?从什么经验继续而来?

No doubt, the pathways by which truth is discovered are unsoundable, and there have even been mathematicians who have admitted to having seen the truth in dreams or having stumbled upon it
by accident. Nevertheless, propriety requires one to present one *s discovery as having proceeded from a process that conforms more closely to the purity of the idea. Science, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion.

雄伯译

无可置疑,凭借的这些途径,所被发现的真理是奥秘难测。
甚至曾经有数学家曾经承认,在各种梦里看见过这个真理。或是曾经偶然地碰触到这个真理。
可是,是否可信则是要求说者提供他的发现,作为是从一个过程继续而来。
这种过程更加靠近于这个观念的纯净。
科学,就像是凯撒的妻子,是不容质疑的。

雄伯
古代罗马,凯撒跟妻子离异,因为妻子的错误行径若是受到怀疑,凯撒自己本人也难摆脱怀疑。 拉康以此引证,科学的论据必须清楚。

然而,精神分析发现的真理,若是使用主观性及无法提出固定指称,会被认为是奥秘难测。
精神分析发现的真理能否自圆其说,作为一门科学的技术,势必要追究它的来源过程,是否观念纯净。

In any case, the scientist’s good reputation has been assured for quite some
time now. Nature can no longer reveal itself in any sort of human form and every
step forward in science has effaced from nature an anthropomorphic trait.
While I think I can speak ironically about what these objections betray by way
of emotional resistance, I do not think I can dispense with responding to their
ideological import. Without going too far afield on epistemological questions,
I will posit first that physical science, as purified as it may seem in its modern
progress from any intuitive category, nevertheless betrays, indeed all the more
strikingly, the structure of the intelligence that constructed it.

雄伯译

无论如何,科学家的良好名声现在已经被确认有相当一段长时间。
「自然」不再需要显示它自己,以任何种类的人类的形式。
在科学方面,前进的每个步骤已经从「自然」抹除一种人类形态的特征。
虽然我认为我能够反讽地谈论到,关于这些反对透露出什么,凭借情感的抗拒。
我不认为我能够免除不用回应他的们意识形态的意义。
我不想离题讨论认识论的问题。
我首先想要提出生理科学,虽然它似乎很纯净化,在它的现代的进展,避免任何直觉得范畴,可是它透露出建构它的智慧的结构,更加生动地。

雄伯说

拉康认为精神分析学应该是一种人类学,因为它所研究及关怀的是人类。
但是当时研究心理学的科学家,却是将人类的「自然」的天性,当著是生理或物理physical science科学的客体在研究。属于人类形态的特征逐渐被抹除。
拉康对于这些心理学的科学家的各种违背人类自然天性的研究,虽然带有情感的抗拒,及反讽, 但是对于他们在意识形态的意义,认为还是有需要回应。
更远的话,还需要回应认识论对于知识intellect的背离人类的自然天性。
当时的心理学,或物理科学避免不谈论任何直觉的范畴intuition category,可是建构它的智慧的结构却更加生动地透露出,直觉的范畴的重要性。
拉康认为精神分析强调直觉的重要性。

If someone like Meyerson could show that physical science is subjected in all its processes to
the form of intellectual identification (a form that is so constitutive of human knowledge that he finds it anew through reflection in ordinary thought processes), and if the phenomenon of light (to provide here the standard of reference and the atom of action) manifests a relationship to the human sensorium
that is more obscure here, don’t these points—ideal points by which physics is related to man, but which are the poles around which physics revolves—demonstrate the most unsettling homologies to the pivotal roles assigned to human knowledge, as I mentioned earlier, by a tradition of reflection
that does not resort to experimentation?

雄伯译

假如某个人,像迈耶松那样,能够显示,物理科学在它的各种过程,都隶属于知识认同的形式,(这一种形式是如此形成人类的知识,以致他重新发现它,通过在普通的思想的过程的反思),
假如光的现象(在此提供指称的标准及行动的原子),证明一种跟人类感官的关系,这种感官在此是比较模糊。
这些要点难道不是证明最不稳定的类同物,类同于指定给人类知识的枢纽的角色?
根据这些理想要点,物理学跟人类息息相关。
这些理想要点是物理学环绕旋转的枢纽。
如同我早先所提到的,这些枢纽的角色被指定给人类的知识,根据沉思的传统。
这个沉思的传统并不诉诸于试验。

雄伯说

知识性的认同 intellectual identification
普通思想的过程的反思 reflection in ordinary thought processes
人类的感官human sensorium
人类的知识human knowledge
沉思的传统 tradition of reflection
试验 experimentation

拉康说明,物理科学的客观的试验,源自于人类沉思的传统。人类的知识或智识knowledge or intellect,跟人类的感官及思想的反思息息相关。

Be that as it may, the anthropomorphism that has been eliminated by
physics in the notion of force, for example, is an anthropomorphism that is not
noetic but psychological, for it is essentially the projection of human intention.
To require a similar elimination in an anthropology that is in the process of
being born and to impose such an elimination upon its most distant goals, would
be to misrecognize its object and to authentically manifest an anthropocentrism
of another order, that of knowledge.

雄伯译

但是尽管如此,在物理力学的观念,人类形态的拟人说已经被减少。
譬如,这种人类形态的拟人说并不是noitic 精神的,而是心理的psychological。
因为这种人类形态的拟人说基本上是人类意图的投射。
假如我们要求类似地减少,在正在被诞生的过程的人类学,假如我们将这样的减少赋加在它最遥远的目标,我们将会误为它的客体,并且会真诚地展示属于另外一个秩序,知识的秩序的人类中心论。

雄伯说

人类形态的拟人说是精神的noetic,跟是心理的psychological,有什么差别?
若是心理的拟人说,基本上是人类意图的的投射,那精神的拟人说是什么?
假如精神分析作为人类学,也像物理力学那样,减少人类形态的拟人说,纯粹客体化,那会形成另一种秩序的人类中心论。
为什么?
以人为万物之衡量的中心,而没有探究到人类的知识的本身的来源。

就像周处除三害,却没有考虑到,其中有一害是自己。牧童骑在牛背上数牛,往往少数自己骑的这一隻。

Indeed, man has relations with nature that are specified, on the one hand,
by the properties of identificatory thought, and on the other hand, by the use
of instruments or artificial tools. His relations with his semblable proceed along
pathways that are far more direct: I am not designating language here, or the
elementary social institutions that are marked with artificiality in their structure,
regardless of their genesis.

雄伯译

的确,一方面,人类跟自然有许多明确的关系,由于思想具有认同的各种特性。
另一方面,由于各种工具,或人造的的各种工具的使用。

人类跟他的类似物的关系,沿着更加直接的途径前进。

我在此并不是正在指明是语言,或是初级的社会机构,它们在它们的结构上被标明为人造的,尽管它们的起源。

雄伯说

人类跟自然的关系。思想具有认同的各identificatory种特性。
人类跟他的类似物的关系。语言,或是初级的社会结构,已经是人造的,并非是自然。
那人类的类似物semblable 是什么呢?

I am thinking, rather, of emotional communication, which is essential to social groups and manifests itself immediately enough in the fact that man exploits his semblable, recognizes himself in this
semblable, and is attached to this semblable by the indelible psychical link that
perpetuates the truly specific vital misery of his first years of life.

代替的,我正在想到情感的沟通。这个情感的沟通对于社会的各种团体是很重要的,而且足够迅速地展示它自己,根据这个事实:人类利用他的类似物,在这个类似物体认出他自己,并且跟这个类似物连接一块,根据这个无法抹除的心理连接。这种无法抹除的心理连接,延续他的生命的最初几年的这个确实是生命力的悲惨。

雄伯说

拉康认为情感沟通才是人类的类似物。
这种类似物使人类情感更加直接地进展,而且这个类似物,还不是语言,或是初级的社会结构。
人类从这个类似物,也就是情感沟通,体认出他自己,并且跟这个类似物连接成一块。
生命的最初几年,应该是指婴儿及幼儿阶段,这一阶段会有确实明确的生命力的悲惨the truly specific vital misery。
为什么?
这个确实明确的生命力的悲惨会造成无法抹除的心理连接。
这种心理连接,就是情感沟通的类似物。人从这个类似物体认出recognize他自己。

These relations can be contrasted with the relations that constitute knowledge,
in the narrow sense of the term, as relations of connaturality: I mean to
evoke with this term their homology to more immediate, global, and adapted
forms that characterize, on the whole, animals’ psychical relations with their
natural environment and by which such psychical relations are distinguished
from psychical relations in man. I shall return to the value of the teachings of
animal psychology. In any case, man’s idea of a world that is united to him
through a harmonious relationship allows us to divine its basis in the anthropomorphism
of the myth of nature. As the effort is achieved that animates this
idea, the reality of this basis is revealed in the ever vaster subversion of nature
implied by the hominiiation of the planet: the “nature” of man is its relationship
to man.

雄伯译

这些关系能够跟构成知识的关系作对照,根据「天然性关系」这个术语的狭义定义。
我打算用这个术语,召唤出它们的同质性,跟更加当下,地球化,被适应的形式。
这些形式大体上表现动物跟它们的自然环境的心理关系。
凭借这些形式,这些心理的关系被区别出来,跟人身上的心理关系区别出来。
我将回头谈论动物心理学的那些教导的价值。
无论如何,人对于世界的观念跟他结合在一块,凭借着一种和谐的关系。
人的这个世界的观念让我们能够猜测这个世界的基础,在于神话对于自然的拟人化。
当激发这种观念的这个努力被完成时,这个基础的现实界被显示出来,由于自然越来越广大的颠覆,由于地球这个行星的人为化:人的「自然」就是地球行星跟人的关系。

雄伯说
情感沟通的这些关系,跟构成知识的关系,作个对照。
前者被称为是天然性的关系relations of connaturality。
动物跟它们的自然环境的心理关系,跟人身上的心理关系不同。
前者较为当下,后者则是将地球行星拟人化。

镜象阶段 06

August 8, 2012

镜象阶段 06
The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

组长新雨

  我们的学说用“原初自恋”来指称这一时刻特有的力比多投资,按照我们的观念,该术语在其创造者们那里揭示了关于语义学的潜在的最为深刻的看法(sentiment)。但是它同样阐明了他们在援引破坏本能甚至死本能时找来界定此种力比多与性力比多的动力学对立,以便说明自恋力比多与“我”的异化功能,与在跟小他者的一切关系中甚至在最为乐善好施的帮助关系中得出的侵凌性之间的明显关系。

In light of my conception, the term “primary narcissism,” by which analytic
doctrine designates the libidinal investment characteristic of this
moment, reveals in those who invented it a profound awareness of semantic
latencies. But it also sheds light on the dynamic opposition between this libido
and sexual libido, an opposition they tried to define when they invoked
destructive and even death instincts in order to explain the obvious relationship
between narcissistic libido and the alienating / function, and the aggressiveness
deriving there from in all relations with others, even in relations
involving aid of the most good-Samaritan variety.

雄伯

从伊狄浦斯情结的这个观念来看,「原初自恋」的这个术语,在杜撰它的那些人身上,揭示语言的各种潜力的最为深刻的知觉。

凭借「原初自恋」的术语,精神分析的信念指明这个生命力比多的投注。

生命力比多作为镜子阶段的结束这个时刻的特色。

但是这个时刻也让人洞见这个动态的对立,处于这个力比多与性的力比多之间的对立。

最早期的精神分析家尝试定义这样一种对立,当他们召唤毁灭的本能,甚至是死亡本能,为了解释这个显而易见的关系。,处于自恋的力比多与这个「我」的异化的功能之间。

这个关系所释出的侵凌性,在跟他者的任何关系,甚至在撒马利亚人的善心救助所牵涉的关系里

雄伯

撒马利亚人的善心救助是基督教新约的典范。有人穷途病倒路边,经过行人均冷漠对待地匆匆而过,只有一位善心的撒马利亚人,留下来照顾其病痛,并给予金钱救助后才离去。

拉康认为,即使像这样的善心义举,都可能具有潜在的侵凌性的动机。因为它处于自恋的力比多与性的力比多之间的动态关系。也就是与「我」的这个异化的功能之间的动态关系。

组长新雨

  事实上他们触及到了存在的否定性,其现实受到了存在与虚无的当代哲学的强力推动[22]。

The fact is that they encountered that existential negativity whose reality
is so vigorously proclaimed by the contemporary philosophy of being and nothingness.

雄伯

事实上,最早期的精神分析家遭遇那种生命实存的否定性。
这种生命实存的否定性的现实界,当代哲学「生命实存与空无」曾强烈地主张。

雄伯
「生命实存与空无」是当代的法国哲学家萨特Sartre 的哲学著作,拉康言其著作,却不提其名,显然对于萨特的主张,颇有微词。

生命实存的否定性指的是生命实存的空无。

组长新雨

但是不幸的是这种哲学只在意识的自足的界限内来把握存在的否定性,由于铭刻在它的那些前提中,这种意识的自足便将其依仗的自主性的假象与“自我”的种种构成性误认(méconnaissance)链接了起来。这种智力游戏,虽然特别沉浸于分析经验的借入,但是却在要确保一种存在主义精神分析的自命不凡中达到了顶点[23]。

Unfortunately, this philosophy grasps that negativity only within the limits
of a self*-sufficiency of consciousness, which, being one of its premises,
ties the illusion of autonomy in which it puts its faith to the ego’s constitutive
misrecognitions. While it draws considerably on borrowings from psychoanalytic
experience, this intellectual exercise culminates in the pretense of
grounding an existential psychoanalysis

雄伯

但是不幸地,那种哲学理解否定性,仅是在意识的一种自足的限制里。
意识的这种自足,作为这种哲学的其中一种前提,跟形成自我的这些错误体认息息相关。
这些错误体认是自我信托给它自己的自主权的幻觉。
这种智力的遊戏,在伪装提供作为一种生命实存的精神分析里,表现得最为淋漓尽致。
尽管这种智力遊戏,有很不寻常的程度,是依靠从精神分析经验借用过来的东西。

雄伯

拉康的精神分析辞说强调主体在实在界the real的无意识the unconscious,对于哲学家萨特的实存哲学,仅局限于意识的自足,很不以为然。认为那是一种错误体认,是自我信托给自己的自主权的幻觉,仅是一种智力的遊戏。

组长新雨

  在一个社会为了不再承认实用性之外的其他功能而作出的历史性举措之后,在个体面对其出现看似补偿了这一努力的集中营式的社会联结而产生的焦虑之中,存在主义基于其给出的那些实际上是由此产生的主体性僵局的辩白而对自己作出了评价:一种只有在监狱的高墙下才如此真实地显示出来的自由,一种表达了纯粹意识超越任何情境之无能的介入要求,一种性关系的偷窥狂—施虐狂的理想化,一种只在自杀中得以实现的人格,一种只有通过黑格尔式的谋杀才获得满足的他者的意识。

At the end of a society’s historical enterprise to no longer recognize that
it has any but a utilitarian function, and given the individual’s anxiety faced
with the concentration-camp form of the social link whose appearance seems
to crown this effort, existentialism can be judged on the basis of the justifications
it provides for the subjective impasses that do, indeed, result therefrom:
a freedom that is never so authentically affirmed as when it is within the
walls of a prison; a demand for commitment that expresses the inability of
pure consciousness to overcome any situation; a voyeuristic-sadistic idealization
of sexual relationships; a personality that achieves self-realization only in suicide; and a consciousness of the other that can only be satisfied by Hegelian murder.

雄伯

一个社会若是经年累月,就殚精竭虑拒绝去承认:除了功利主义的功能外,尚有任何其他功能,
当个人面对「集中营」形态的社会契约,焦虑不已,因为后者对于前者的殚精竭虑,是为虎作伥。

存在主义是否自圆其说,则是有赖于它对于生命主体所面临的僵局,能否提供的各种解释。
存在主义确实是因为生命主体面临的僵局而形成。因为当自由仅局限于监狱之内时,这种自由是最为真诚。它是对于奉献的要求,表达出,纯粹的意识无能为力来掌控任何的情况。这样的无能为力将性的关系,以窥视狂与虐待狂的方式来理想化,这样一种人格仅有以自杀方式才能实践自己。这样一种他者的意识,仅有凭借黑格尔式的谋杀,才能够满足。

雄伯
哲学家萨特的名言:地狱间是别人 Hell is other people。

这里所说的他者的意识,大概就是地狱的意识,因此仅有凭借黑格尔式的谋杀才能满足。

所谓「黑格尔式的谋杀」,就是杀死你生命的外在部分,为了更加充实地经验你自己,及你的生命本质,而不是你生命的虚假部分。(killing that which is outside of you in order to more fully experience yourself and what you are, rather than what you are not)。

组长新雨

  我们的整个经验都是与这些观念相对立的,因为它使我们离开了将“自我”设想成是以“知觉—意识系统”为中心的,设想成是由“现实原则”组织起来的,与认识的辩证法截然相反的科学主义的偏见便表达在该原则中——以向我们指出要从将其刻画在安娜•弗洛伊德小姐极力肯定的所有结构中的误认功能出发:因为如果“否定”(Verneinung)表现了其显在的形式,那么其效果就仍然大部分是潜在的,只要它们没有在它我表现于其中的命定水平上为某种反光照亮。

These notions are opposed by the whole of analytic experience, insofar as
it teaches us not to regard the ego as centered on the perception-consciousness
system or as organized by the “reality principle”—the expression of a scientific
bias most hostile to the dialectic of knowledge—but, rather, to take as
our point of departure the function ofmisrecognition that characterizes the ego
in all the defensive structures so forcefully articulated by Anna Freud. For,
while Verneinung [negation] represents the blatant form of that function, its
effects remain largely latent as long as they are not illuminated by some
reflected light at the level of fate where the id manifests itself.

雄伯译

我们精神分析经验,对于这些论点完全不与苟同。因为精神分析经验教导我们,不要将自我视为是集中于这种「感官与意识的系统」,或是由「现实原则」所组成。

「现实原则」是科学的偏见的表达,对于知识的这个辩证法最为敌对。

我们精神分析经验跟我们显示:相反地,我们应该从自我及其一切结构的特征的「错误体认」的功能开始。

安娜、弗洛伊德曾经如此清楚明白地表述自我及其一切的结构。

因为,假如这个「否定」Verneinung 代表那种功能的专有的形式,它的后馀症绝大部分将会始终被潜藏。只要这些后馀症没有被揭发出来,被某些洞见的光辉,照见到无所遁迹的程度。

那就是这个本我(id)展示它自己的地方。

雄伯说

拉康的精神分析,不仅反对哲学家萨特将自我专注视为是「感官与意识的系统」,而且也反对将自我专注视为是由「现实原则」所组织。因为现实原则上科学偏见的表达,对于知识的辩证法最具敌意。

所谓的「知识」的辩证法,拉康指的是实在界的无意识的知识(knowledge of the unconscious)。也就是作为实在界应该知道的主体,在符号界的现实原则下饱受压抑及阉割,逐渐丧失作为自由与欢爽的生命力。

拉康不仅说「无意识是像一种语言的结构」,而且也说,「无意识的知识有其逻辑结构」,也就是无意识的知识有其辩证法则。

佛洛伊德提出「超越快乐原则」,拉康则是提出「超越现实原则」,不是分庭抗礼,而是异曲同工。问题是如何超越?

拉康认为应该从作为自我与其所有结构的特征地错误体认meconnaissance的功能开始,并且借助安娜、弗洛伊德的清楚表述作为理论凭借。

安娜、弗洛伊德的「自我及其防卫机制」Ego and Mechanisms of Defence,认为自我的意象的本身,始终受到自恋的不好的信念的各种联想的污染,指明是缺席或欠缺的肉体化scotomization of absence or lack。自我本质上是一种防卫的形成,分享病征的矛盾的特性。因此自我既是遮蔽,也是背叛的结构。自我凭借遮蔽它被认为是真实的欠缺the lack的背叛。这个真实的欠缺就是弗洛德所说的本我id,拉康则称之为主体the subject。那才是生命的真正主子。

因此,作为自我的典范,意象imago也是一种虚假的存在,因为它逃避它仅是作为幻想代理的地位,换句话说,它仅是错误体认meconnaissance的功能。

在病征所具体显现的这种「否认」Verneinung,可以总结镜子阶段的这种错误体认。

镜象阶段 07

August 8, 2012

镜象阶段 07
The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

组长新雨

  由此“我”的诸多形成特有的这一惰性便得到了理解,我们可从中看到神经症的最为宽泛的定义:主体经由情境的捕获给出了疯狂的最普遍的表述,即那种存在于疯人院围墙中的疯狂,以及那种以其噪音及其狂怒震慑大地的疯狂。

The inertia characteristic of the / formations can thus be understood as providing the broadest definition of neurosis, just as the subject’s capture by his situation gives us the most general formulation of madness—the kind found within the asylum walls as well as the kind that deafens the world with its sound and fury.

雄伯译

我们因此能够理解,这个「我」的诸多形成,具有惰性的特征。我们在那里找到神经症最为广泛的定义—正如从主体被环境的空间的征服捕获,我们获得最普遍的疯狂公式。这个公式不但适用于精神病院的墙壁背后的那种疯狂,而且适用于让世界震耳欲聋的喧嚣与愤怒的疯狂。

雄伯说

「Sound and fury 喧嚣与愤怒」典出莎士比亚的悲剧「马克白」:

Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is hear no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of fury and sound,
Signifying nothing
人僅是一個會走路的影子,一個拙劣的演員
在舞台上高視闊步,自命不凡
然後就消失無蹤。人生的故事
述說者是一位白癡,充滿愤怒和喧囂,
卻毫無意義。

作为我的诸多形成具有惰性的这种特征,是指前面的自我的防卫机制,以错误体认的代理地位,习惯性地以否认verneinung来遮蔽及背叛真实的主子:本我id或主体the subject。

神经症跟疯狂的最广泛的定义,不仅适用于精神病院的墙壁背后,也适用于让世界震耳欲聋的愤怒与喧嚣。也就是,在枱面上高视阔步,看起来正常,人模人样的你和我,其实也是岌岌可危。说不一定,哪一天无意识的主体展现自己,在别人眼中可能就是张牙舞爪,丧心病狂,而自己犹浑然不自觉。

问题是:受到时间与空间的双重拘束的生命主体,要让自我的防卫机制不断地冒充代理?还是主体自己展现,勇敢地活出真正的自己?

组长新雨

  神经症和精神病的痛苦对我们而言是灵魂的激情[24]的操练,就好像精神分析天平的秤杆——当我们计算其威胁在整个共同体上的倾斜时——为我们给出了城市的激情的减缓指数。

The sufferings of neurosis and psychosis provide us schooling in the passions of the soul, just as the balance arm of the psychoanalytic scales—when we calculate the angle of its threat to entire communities—provides us with an amortization rate for the passions of the city.

雄伯
神经症与精神病的痛苦,对于我们而言,是灵魂激情的一种教导,作为精神分析的天平的横梁,当我们计算横梁的威胁倾斜朝向整个的社会这边,它供应给予我们一种指示:社会的各种激情正在遞减之中。

雄伯

灵魂的各种激情指的是什么?爱情,友情,家国之爱,真理之爱、宗教狂热、、、?我记得「耶稣殉难记」的英文片名,就是Passion「激情」。神经症及精神病的各种痛苦,是激情的过分奔放的结果,还是过分的受到压抑的病征?

应该是两者都有可能。问题是:精神分析介入于个人的激情与社会契约的理性压抑之间,那个平衡点要如何掌握?会不会有分析家本身都有失衡的时刻?

组长新雨

  在当代人类学固执地勘探的这一自然与文化的结点上,精神分析独自认出了那个爱必须永远将其拆解或斩断的想象的束缚之结。

At this intersection of nature and culture, so obstinately scrutinized by the anthropology of our times, psychoanalysis alone recognizes the knot of imaginary servitude that love must always untie anew or sever.

雄伯译

在自然与文化的这个交会点,我们当代的人类学正在契而不舍地审察,光是精神分析就体认出:必须凭借爱,重新解开想象的服务的环结,要不然就快刀予以劈开。

雄伯说

激情属于人类的自然天性nature,社会契约social bond的压抑,属于文化culture的理性。精神分析学也是人类学,因他关怀的是人。

拉康的环结最初有三个,实在the real ,想象the imaginary ,符号the symbolic。癔症与妄想症的患者,往往罔顾符号象征,将想象与实在联结成固执的结fixation,必须凭借爱的力量予以慢慢解开,或者爱如慧剑当下劈开。

问题是爱从何来?拉康认为,爱是我们每个人与生具有的能力,只是进入符号界后,被经验世界的习性污染而减弱。有时甚至连实践中的分析家都习焉不察,嘲讽精神分析何时变成宗教的大爱?

组长新雨

  对于这样一项工作,利他主义的情操在看穿了慈善家、空想家、教育家甚至改革家行为背后的侵凌性的我们看来是没有前途的,

For such a task we can find no promise in altruistic feeling, we who lay bare the aggressiveness that underlies the activities of the philanthropist, the idealist, the pedagogue, and even the reformer.

雄伯译

对于这样一项工作,我们并不寄希望于人类的利他主义的精神。因为我们揭露出,慈善家,理想家,教育家,甚至改革者,他的各种活动潜藏着个人的侵凌性。

雄伯说

这确实是令人懊恼的真相:慈善家,理想家,教育家,甚至改革者,他们的各种活动潜藏着个人的侵凌性。那纯粹的爱要从何而来?人要如何恢复他与生俱有而被经验世界的习性污染的爱的能力?

拉康探究精神分析,原先是从科学的研究精神出发,但是探究到爱时,却不得不借助基督教的骑士之爱,爱你的邻居如你自己,或是类似佛教的悲悯pathos。他自己对于精神分析的实践,我认为应该是一种追求真理之爱,启蒙无意识的知识主体之爱。

组长新雨

  在我们保持的主体对主体的救助中,精神分析能够陪伴病人直抵“你即如此”(tu es cela)的狂喜的限度,在那里给他揭示出其必死的命数,但是将他带到真正的旅途开始的那个时刻却不在我们作为实践者仅有的能力之中。

In the subject to subject recourse we preserve, psychoanalysis can accompany the patient to the ecstatic limit of the “Thou art that*9 where the cipher of his mortal destiny is revealed to him, but it is not in our sole power as practitioners to bring him to the point where the true journey begins.
Notes

雄伯译

在我们维持的主体对主体的求助中,精神分析可能伴随病人,到达「你即如此」的狂喜的极限。在那个狂喜的极限,他作为人仅具有限生命期限的命运的这个奥秘,为他启示。但是我们作为精神分析实践者的能力,还不足以引导他到达真正的旅途的开始。

雄伯说

他作为人,仅具有限生命期限的命运的这个奥秘,启示了又如何呢?真正的旅途才要开始的那个点在哪里呢?拉康欲语还休,我猜他自己也是甚为迷惘,他后来解散分析家训练的通过制度passe,甚至到晚年,将他创立的拉康派精神分析协会也解散。这才开始他的真正的旅途吗?

拉康认为,从「你即如此」的狂喜的极限,距离真正的旅途的开始,好像还有一段长距离,而且这段引导好像还不是精神分析实践者的能力所及。必须分析者自己身体力行地启蒙与创造。那延伸出一个问题:精神分析的过程何时结束?

雄伯说拉康

June 2, 2012

雄伯说
关于分析家的欲望,拉康小组组长李新雨在「分析过程与分析结束」一文里是这么说的:

2.2. 分析家的欲望

与假设知道的主体一样,分析者也把欲望归于分析家,因而分析家也是一个“假设欲望的主体”。分析家在治疗中的任务就是使他的欲望对分析者“保持着一个未知”[12]。由此,分析家的欲望成为了分析过程的推动力,因为它使分析者继续工作,试图寻找分析家的欲望的谜底。
“分析家的欲望从根本上说就是在精神分析中运作的东西”[13]。通过向分析者展现这个谜一般的欲望,分析家就占据了大他者的位置,主体向他询问“Che vuoi?”,结果是主体无意识的基本幻想出现在转移中。

此外,分析家的欲望也是认同的对立面,其功能在于防止分析者的要求变成认同,它是一种更强的欲望(Thanatos),是不要获得大他者的欲望的欲望,是“对痊愈的不欲望”[14]。

分析家欲望的是分析者自己独特的真理在分析中显现出来,这一真理截然不同于分析家的真理,因而分析家的欲望是一种“得到绝对差异的欲望”。正是在这个意义上,拉康把它定位在精神分析伦理学的中心(苏格拉底式的欲望:Ataraxia)。

雄伯说
在精神分析运作中,分析家的欲望保持是一个未知,这个未知成为分析过程的推动力,因为它使分析者继续工作,试图寻找分析家的欲望的谜底,也让分析家就占据了大他者的位置,主体向他询问“Che vuoi?”,结果是主体无意识的基本幻想出现在转移中。

以上的陈述是分析者的转移过程,对于「对于分析家的欲望的幻见fantasy,是无可质疑的。问题是,从分析家本身,他如何来看待他自己作为分析家的欲望?组长将它定义为「是一种更强的欲望(Thanatos),是不要获得大他者的欲望的欲望,是“对痊愈的不欲望”[14]。」

这种更强的欲望Thanatos,是什么呢?从希腊神话Greek mythology来理解,它是死亡的具体化身,the personification of death,从精神分析来理解,它是无意识对于死亡的渴an unconscious urge to die,新雨的诠释「是不要获得大他者的欲望的欲望,是“对痊愈的不欲望”」,春雄同学的迷惑是为什么?组长作为分析家的欲望,为什么是这个极端悖论的欲望?

另外,所谓「苏格拉底式的欲望:Ataraxia」,难道不也是弗洛伊德追求死亡本能death instinct 的欲望?

这个Ataraxia 字典上的定义是「心灵的安详」peace of mind。拉康在「康德与萨德」一文里是这样说的:

Christianity has assuredly taught men to pay little attention to God’s jouissance, and this is how Kant makes palatable his voluntarism of Law-for- Law’s-sake, which is something that exaggerates, one might say, the ataraxia of the Stoics.

基督教确实教人不要太注意上帝的欢爽。这就是为什么康德让他的「为了法则而法则的志愿主义」,那么讨人喜爱的地方。我们不妨说, 它是某件誇张禁欲学派的「安详」。

组长新雨作为分析家的欲望,就是追求禁欲学派的这种「心灵的安详」ataraxia吗?请问组长,你在这几年的分析经验里追求到了这种绝对差异的介入没有?感受如何?能否分享一下

春雄同学说

我没有Pollus 跟组长新雨丰富的个人分析经验,因此,面对拉康的「性的公式」formulae of sexuality,我仅有凭借自为分析的想象及大乘佛教的观念来帮助理解。

拉康的性的公式有四组quadrant。

左下角是∀x.∅x, 倒转的∀代表All (全部)也就是「全部的人都是有限生命」All man is mortal 的All 的字首A的倒置,x则是作为未知数的主体,∅x 则是说「我要」(say yes)阳具享乐phallus enjoyment的未知数主体x,阳具被划杠代表阳具享乐本身的限制,必须在言说的勃起状态时,才具有阳具享乐。

右下角是∀x.∅x (∀x 的上方,应该划一条横杠,我的电脑技术画不出来,在此征求高手,帮我画图,张贴出来)。这个上方被划横杠的∀x,代表「并非全部」not-all,也就是具有「有限生命」mortal的例外可能的「无限生命」immortal,或是「永恒的女性」eternal feminine。她们也是说「我要」(say yes)阳具的享乐phallus enjoyment的未知数主体x,只是处于欠缺的what is lacking的渴望状态。

左上方是∃x.∅x (∅x 的上方,应该画一条横杠,我画不出来,你们自己画))。倒置的∃ 是生命实存Existence的字首E 的倒置,倒置代表它们的生命实存,是「预先-存在」Ek-sistence。∅x 的上方画一条横杠,代表作为「预先-存在」Ek-sistence的未知数主体x,对阳具的享乐phallus enjoyment 的功用说「不要」say no。

右上方是∃x.∅x(∃x.∅x 的上方,各画一条横杠, 我画不出来,你们自己画)。∃x. .∅x 的上方,各画一条横杠,意味着,并没有代表生命实存Ek-sistence的未知数主体x,对阳具享乐的功用说「不要」say no,但是阳具的享乐的功用仍然被画一条杠,代表没有了。

分析家作为应该知道的主体 the subject supposed to know,或是作为应该欲望的主体,the subject supposed to desire,会是摆放在哪一位位置,有谁能告诉我?