能指自身并没有意指什么

springhero 大他者

2014-01-28 17:35:39

The signifies as such, signifies nothing 能指自身并没意指著什么 THE NOTION OF STRUCTURE 结构的观念 SUBJECTIVITY IN THE REAL 实在界的主体性 HOW TO LOCATE THE BEGINNING OF A DELUSION 如何找出幻觉开始的位置 THE BETWEEN-I'S 在我与主体之间 Ad usum annum aratianis, incredibile e$t, nisi diligenter attenderis, quanta opera machinata natura sit. How many marvels there are concealed by the function of language, if you want to pay diligent attention to it! You know that this is what we are striving towards here. You won't be astonished, therefore, that I should offer you this sentence from Cicero as an epigraph, since it is on this theme that this term we are going to return to the study of the Freudian structures of the psychoses. 有多少的惊奇隐藏在语言的功能里，假如你们想要勤奋地注意它。你们知道，这是我们正在奋斗朝向这里的地方。因此，你们将不会大吃一惊，对于我竟然提供你们这个句子，从西塞录引述过来作为后记。因为我们将要将这个术语回归到弗洛依德学派对于精神病的结构的研究。 Effectively, it's a question of what Freud left behind concerning the structures of the psychoses, this being why we call them Freudian. 有效地，问题是弗洛依德留下怎样的东西，关于精神病的结构。这就是为什么我们称呼它们为弗洛依德学派的原因。 1 The notion of structure by itself deserves our attention. Given the manner in which we efficaciously apply it in analysis, it implies a number of coordinates, and the very notion of coordinate is part of it. A structure is in the first place a group of elements forming a covariant set. 结构的观念本身就应该值得我们关注。假如考虑到这个方式，我们有效地将它应用到精神分析的方式。它暗示著许多的座标。座标的这个观念是它的一部分。结构首先是一组元素组成一个共同变数的集合。 I said a set, I didn't say a totality. As a matter of fact, the notion of structure is analytic. A structure is always established by referring something coherent to something else, which is complementary to it. But the notion of totality only comes into it if we are dealing with a closed relation with a correspondent, where the structures are interdependent. On the other hand it is possible to have an open relation, which we shall call a relation of supplementarity. For those who have gone in for structural analyses the ideal has always appeared to be to find what links the two, the closed and the open, to discover circularity on the side of the open. 我说「集合」，我并没有说「整体」。事实上，结构的这个观念是精神分析。结构总是被建立，凭借将某件一贯的东西。指涉到某件跟它互补的其它东西。但是整体的这个观念，仅是当我们正在处理跟一个对应者的封闭的关系时，它才存在。在那里，各种结构是互相依靠的。在另一方面，它们可能拥有一个开放的关系，我们不妨称之为辅助的关系。对于那些喜欢结构的各种分析的人们，理想总是出现，为了能够找到联接这两者的东西，封闭的关系与开放的关系，为了在开放的这边，发现循环迴圈。 I think that you're well enough oriented to understand that the notion of structure is by itself already a manifestation of the signifier. The little I've just indicated about its dynamics, about what it implies, points you towards the notion of signifier. To be interested in structure is to be unable to neglect the signifier. In structural analysis, as in the analysis of the relationship between signifier and signified, we discover relations between groups founded on sets that, whether open or closed, essentially comprise reciprocal references. In the analysis of the relationship between signifier and signified we have learned to stress synchrony and diachrony, and this reappears in a structural analysis. 我认为，你们具有充分条件来理解，结构的这个观念本身已经是能指的展现。关于能指的生命动力，我刚刚指示的一些东西，关于能指暗示的东西，引导你们朝向能指的观念。对于结构感到興趣，就是无法忽略能指。在结构的精神分析，如同在能指与所指之间的关系的分析，我们发现以集合作为基础的各个组群之间的关系。无论开放或是封闭，它基本上是由互惠的指涉所组成。在能指与所指之间的关系的分析，我们已经学习到要强调同时性与历时性。在结构的分析里，同时性与历时性会重复出现。 In the end, if we observe them closely, the notion of structure and that of signifier appear inseparable. In fact, when we analyze a structure it's always at least ideally a question of the signifier. What satisfies us the most in a structural analysis is an uncovering, that is as radical as possible, of the signifier. 最后，假如我们仔细观察，结构的观念与能指的观念似乎无法分开。事实上，当我们分析结构时，它总是能指的问题，至少在理想上。在结构的分析里，最让我们感到满意的东西是能指的揭露，那既是强烈，也是可能。 We situate ourselves in a field that is distinct from the field of the natural sciences and that, as you know, it isn't enough to call the field of the human sciences. Where are we to draw the dividing line? How closely do we have to approximate to the ideals of the sciences of nature such as they have developed for us - for instance, physics as we know it? To what extent are we unable to avoid differentiating ourselves from them? Well then, it's in relation to these definitions of the signifier and of structure that the appropriate boundary can be drawn. 我们定位我们自己的位置，跟自然科学的领域的位置不同。众所周知，仅是称为人文科学的领域并不足够。我们应该如何划出这个分界线呢？对于自然科学的理想，我们必须靠近得多密切，自然科学替我们发展出来的理想。譬如，众所周知的物理。我们无法避免跟它们划清界限到什么程度？呵呵，就是跟能指与结构的这些定义的关系，适当的边界能够被划出。 In physics we have adopted the law that we proceed from the idea that in nature nobody uses the signifier to signify. This is what distinguishes our physics from mystical physics and even from the physics of antiquity, which had nothing mystical about it, but which didn't adopt this strict requirement. It has become a fundamental law for us, one required of every utterance within the order of the natural sciences, that there is nobody who uses the signifier. 在物理学，我们曾经採用这个法则：在自然界，没有人使用能指来意指理念，我们赖以前进的理念。这就是我们的物理学与神秘主义的物理学不同的地方。甚至跟古代的物理学。它对于自然丝毫没有神秘的东西。但是它并没有採用这个严格的要求。对于我们，没有人使用能指来意涵，已经成为一个基本的法则，对于每个表达要求的法则，在自然科学的秩序之内。 The signifier is nevertheless there in nature, and if we weren't looking for the signifier, we shouldn't find anything there at all. To extract a natural law is to extract a meaningless formula. The less it signifies anything, the happier we are. This is why we're perfectly happy with the achievements of Einstei- nian physics. You would be wrong to think that those little equations of Einstein's that express the relationship of inertial mass to a constant plus some exponents have the slightest meaning. They are pure signifiers. And this is why thanks to him we hold the world in the palm of our hand. 可是，能指在自然那里。假如我们没有正在寻找能指，我们在那里将会什么东西都没找到。将自然法则抽离出来，等于是抽离出一个无意义的公式。能指越是没有意指任何东西，我们越是快乐。这就是为什么我们非常感到快乐，对爱因斯坦的物理学的各项成就感到快乐。假如你们认为，爱因斯坦的那些精简的方程式，表惯性质量跟一个常数加某些的指数的关系的这个方程式，拥有丝毫的意义，那么你们就错误了。它们纯粹是各种能指。这就是为什么幸赖爱因斯坦，我们才将世界掌握于我们的手中。 The idea that the signifier signifies something, that there is someone who uses this signifier to signify something, is called the Signature rerum. This is the tide of a work by Jakob Boehme.1 It means that God is present in natural phenomena and speaks to us in his language. 能指意涵著某件东西的这个观念，有某个使用这个能指来意涵某件东西的这个观念，被称之为万物签章Signature rerum 。这就是Jakob Boeme所写的一本著作的讯息。它意味著，上帝存在于自然的现象里，并且用他的语言跟我们言说。 209 You must nevertheless not think that our physics implies the elimination of all meaning. There is a meaning at the limit, but there is nobody to signify it. In physics the mere existence of a signifying system implies, at the very least, the meaning that there is an Utmvelt. Physics implies the minimal conjunction of the two signifiers, one and all - that all things are one or that the one is all things 可是，你一定不要认为，我们的物理学暗示着减少所有的意义。在极限有一个意义，但是没有人能意指它。在物理学，意指的系统的存在本身至少就暗示着这个意义：有一种生态环境存在。物理学暗示着两个能指，「一」及「全部万物」的最小量的联系。万物是一，或一是万物。 You would be wrong to think that these signifiers belonging to science, however simple they are, are given or that any form of empiricism would enable one to abstract them. No empirical theory is able to account for the existence of even the first whole numbers. Despite Mr. Jung's best efforts to convince us of the contrary, history, observation, and ethnography show us that at a certain level of the signifier in a given culture, community, or tribe of people, it's an accomplishment to get access to the number five, for instance. One can clearly distinguish on the banks of the Orinoco between a tribe that has learned to signify the number four and not beyond, and one for which the number five opens up surprising possibilities, consistent moreover with the entire signifying system into which the tribe is inserted. 假如你们认为，这些属于科学的能指，无论它们多么简单，都是任何实验主义的形式，让我们能够将它们抽离出来的讯息，那你们就错误了。再多的实验主义的理论，都无法解释即使是最初的整数的存在。尽管荣格先生殚精力尽地说服我们，解释是可能的，历史，观察与种族学都告诉我们，在某个特定的文化，社区或部落种族的某个层次，譬如，要接近五这个数字都是一项成就。在Orinoco河的堤岸，我们能够清楚地区别一个部落，他们已经学习到用四这个数字来意指，再多就没了。这不同另一个部落，五的这个数字展开令人惊奇的各种可能性。而且，跟这个部落被插进的整个的意指化的系统前后一贯。 This isn't a joke. It's to be taken literally. The extraordinary effect the number three had when it arrived in a certain Amazon tribe has been recorded by people who knew what they were talking about. Uttering a series of whole numbers isn't self evident. It's altogether conceivable, and experience shows that this is so, that beyond a certain limit in this series things get mixed up and one no longer sees anything but a confused multitude. Experience also shows that since the number one necessarily implies its maximum effect, it's not the number one whose origin we are able, in acquiring the signifier, to understand clearly. 这并不是一个笑话。它应该被实质地看待。三这个数字具有的特殊的影响，当它到达某个亚马逊的部落，曾经被记录下来，由那些知道他们究竟在谈论些什么的人们记录下来。表达一系列的整数并不是不证而明。它完全能够被构想，我们根据经验却知道，情况并非是如此。在这个系列，超过某个极限，事情就会混淆。我们不再看出任何东西，而是混沌一团。我们根据经验也知道，因为「一」这个数字必然会暗示着它的最大量的影响，当我们获得能指时，「一」这个数字的起源，我们并无法清楚地理解。 These considerations appear to contradict my remarks to you about the fact that any system of language includes, or covers, the totality of possible meanings. This isn't so, for that didn't mean that every system of language exhausts the possibilities of the signifier, which is quite different. The proof of this is the fact that, for example, the language of an Australian tribe may express a given number by a crescent moon. 这些考虑似乎与我跟你们的谈论互相牴触，关于这个事实：语言的任何系统包括，或涵盖各种可能意义的整体性。情况并非是如此。因为那并不意味着，语言的每一个系统穷尽这个能指的各种可能性。这个能指是完全不同的。有关这个的证据是这个事实：譬如，澳洲部落的种族的语言可能根据一个弯月来表达一个特定的数字。 These remarks may appear to you to be way off the mark. It's essential however to take them up again at the beginning of our topic for this year. Our starting point, the point we keep coming back to, since we shall always be at the starting point, is that every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. 对于你们而言，这些谈论有点离题。可是，在今年我们的主题的开始，重新探讨它们是非常重要的。我们的起始点，我们持续地回到这个点。因为我们将总是处于起始点：每个真实的能指的自身，都是意指空无的一个能指。 雄伯译 32hsiung@pchome.com.tw http://springhero.wordpress.com

赞

• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-01-29 09:55:01

  精神病 210
  
  2
  Experience proves it - the more the signifier signifies nothing, the more
  indestructible it is.
  
  经验证明它，能指越是什么都不意指，它越是无法被毁灭。
  
  They go off in a foolish direction, those who make fun of what one may
  call the power of words, by demonstrating, which is always easy, the contra
  dictions into which one falls with the play of a given concept, those who mock
  nominalism, as it's called, in a given philosophy.
  
  它们朝着愚蠢的方向爆发，有些人嘲弄我们所谓的文字的力量，总是轻率地证明，我们掉入的悖论，玩弄一个特定的观念。有些人嘲弄唯名论，顾名思义，那是在特定的哲学里。
  
  It's of course easy to criticize what may be arbitrary or fleeting in the use
  of a notion like that of society, for instance. It's not so very long ago that this
  word was invented, and it's amusing to see what dead ends result in the real
  from the notion that the society is responsible for what happens to the individual
  - a notion the requirement for which was ultimately expressed in socialist
  constructions. There is in effect something radically arbitrary in the emergence
  of the notion of society - I'm not saying of the city. Recall that for our
  friend Cicero in the above work the nation is, as it were, only the goddess of
  the population - it presides over births. As a matter of fact the modern idea
  of the nation is not even on the horizon of classical thought, and it is not
  merely the fortunes of a word that demonstrate this to us.
  
  当然，要批评是很容易，批评那些任意或瞬间的东西，当我们使用一个观念，譬如像是社会的观念。不久以前，这个字被杜撰。耐人寻味的是看见怎样的僵局造成真实界，根据这个观念：社会要替个人身上发生的事情负责—对于这样的观念的要求，最后在社会主义的建造里被表达。实际上，社会的这个观念的出现，具有某件任意性的东西。我并不是谈论城市。请你们回忆一下：对于我们的朋友西塞录，在以上的著作，所谓的国家仅是众多的人口的女神—它主持诞生的事情。实际上，现代对于国家的观念甚至并不是在古典思想的视阔。这不光光是文字的戏弄就能跟我们证明这些。
  
  None of these things is self-evident. One is free to conclude from this that
  doubt can be cast on the notion of society. But it's precisely insofar as we are
  able to cast doubt upon it that it's a signifier. It's also for this reason that it
  has entered our social reality like the prow of a ship, like a ploughshare.
  
  那些事情没有一样是自明代。我们可根据这个自由地作结论：对于社会的观念投以怀疑。但是这确实是因为我们能够对社会的观念投以怀疑。也因为这个理由，它已经进入我们的社会的现实界，像是的船之舵，像是耕犁。
  
  When one speaks of the subjective, and even when here we call it into
  question, the illusion always remains in our minds that the subjective is the
  opposite of the objective, that it's on the side of the speaker, and finds itself,
  by virtue of this very fact, on the side of illusions - it either distorts or
  restricts the objective. The dimension elided until now in the understanding
  of Freudianism is that the subjective isn't on the side of the speaker. It's
  something we encounter in the real.
  
  当我们谈论到主体性，甚至当我们质疑它，在我们的心里，这个幻觉总是存在，主观性总是客体性的相反。主体性就是言说者的这一边，并且找到它自己。凭借这个事实，在幻觉的这一边。它要就是扭曲，要不就是限制客体性。这个向度闪烁不定，直到现在，在弗洛依德学派的理解是，主体性并不是在言说的这一边。主体性是我们在真实界邂逅的某件东西。
  
  精神病 211
  The real in question is no doubt not to be taken in the sense in which we
  normally understand it, which implies objectivity, a confusion constantly being
  made in analytic writings. The subjective appears in the real insofar as it
  implies that we have opposite us a subject capable of using the signifier, the
  play of signifiers. And capable of using it like us - not to signify something
  but precisely to deceive us over what there is to signify. This is to use the
  fact that the signifier is something other than meaning in order to present a
  deceptive signifier. This is so essential that it is strictly speaking the first step
  of modern physics. The Cartesian discussion of the deceptive god is a step
  that is impossible to avoid for any foundation of physics in the sense in which
  we understand the term
  
  受到质疑的真实界，无可置疑地，不应该认为是这个意义，我们正常理解它的意义。暗示客体性的意义。在精神分析的著作里，这一种混淆不断地产生。主体性出现在实在界，因为暗示着：在我们的对立面，我们拥有一个能够使用能指的主体，使用能指遊戏的主体。能够像我们这样使用它—不是意指某件东西，而是确实地欺骗我们，对于所要意指的东西。那就是要使用这个事实：能指是某件绝非是意义的东西，为了要呈现一个欺骗性的能指。这是如此的重要，以致于严格地说，它是现代物理学的第一步。笛卡尔对于欺骗的神的讨论，是不可能避免的一步，为了要建立物理学的基础，根据我们理解这个术语的意义。
  
  The subjective is for us that which distinguishes the field of science in
  which psychoanalysis is grounded from the entire field of physics. It's the
  instance of subjectivity as present in the real that is the essential source of the
  fact that we are saying something new when we single out, for example, these
  series of apparently natural phenomena that we call neuroses or psychoses.
  Do the psychoses form a series of natural phenomena? Do they fall within
  a field of natural explanation? What I'm calling natural is the field of science
  in which there is no one who uses the signifier to signify.
  
  对于我们而言，主体性是区别科学的领域跟物理学的整个领域不同的地方。而精神分析学的基础却是在科学的领域。存在于真实界的主体性例子，是这个事实的重要来源。我们正在言是某件新东西的这个事实，譬如，当我们挑选出这一系列的显见的自然的现象。我们称之为神经症或精神病的现象。他们会掉落到自然解释的领域里面吗？我所谓的自然的解释，指的是科学的领域，在那里，没有人使用能指来意涵。
  
  Please remember these definitions, because I'm only giving them to you
  after having carefully decanted them.
  
  请你们记住这些定义，因为我仅是给予你们这些定义，当我们已经仔细地让它们流露出来。
  
  I think they are suited, in particular, to contributing the greatest clarity on
  the subject of final causes. The idea of final cause is repugnant to science in
  its present form, but science constantly makes use of it in a camouflaged way,
  in the notion of a return to a state of equilibrium, for instance. If by final
  cause one simply understands a cause that acts in advance, which tends towards
  something out ahead, it's absolutely ineliminable from scientific thought, and
  there is just as much final cause in Einstein's equations as in Aristotle. The
  difference is precisely this - there is no one who uses this signifier to signify
  anything - unless it's this, which is that there is a universe.
  
  我认为这些定义是合适的，特别是对于作为最后的原因的主体，具有豁然澄清。最后的原因的这个观念令目前这种状态的科学感到厌恶。但是科学不断地使用它，以轮廓的方式。譬如，用回转到平衡状态的观念。假如凭借最后的原因，我们仅是理解一个预先行动的原因。它倾向于朝向前头的东西。它绝对无法从科学的思想减少出来。在爱因斯坦的方程式，跟在亚里斯多德一样，最后的原因的同样地多。差异确实这个：没有人用这个能指来意指任何东西—除非是这个，有一个宇宙存在。
  
  I was reading in Mr. [. . .] how amazed he was at the existence of the
  element water - how well this shows the care that the Creator has taken with
  order and, with our pleasure, for if water were not this element that is so
  wonderfully fluid, heavy, and solid, we wouldn't see little boats sailing so
  beautifully on the sea. This is written and it would be a mistake to think that
  the author is an idiot. It's just that he was still a captive of the atmosphere of
  a time when nature was made for speaking. We overlook this because of a
  kind of purification that has taken place in our causal requirements. But this
  alleged naivety was natural for people for whom everything that presents
  itself with a signifying nature is made for signifying something.
  
  我正在阅读某先生的著作，他对于作为元素的水非常惊奇。这显示创造主是多么的细心来处理这个秩序，及我们的欢乐。因为假如水不是如此奇妙地流动，沉重，而成为具体的这个元素，我们无法明白小船隻如何在海上航行得如此漂亮。这些东西被写出，假如我们认为，这位作者是痴人说梦话，那我们就错误了。那仅是因为他依旧是他所处的时代的气氛的俘奴。在那个时代，自然的形成是作为言说之用。我们忽略这个，因为我们对于因果律的要求，曾经发生某种的肃清作用。但是这种宣称的天真，对于那些人是很自然的。对于那些人，每样东西都呈现它自身，用意指的特性。每样东西都是为了意指某件东西而形成。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-01-31 19:45:06

  精神病 212
  
  People are currently engaging in a very curious operation, which consists
  in overcoming certain difficulties presented by certain frontier domains into
  which the question of the use of the signifier as such has to be introduced,
  precisely by means of the notion of communication which we've discussed on
  occasion. And the reason I've placed the article by Tomkins in this issue of
  the journal you've all become somewhat familiar with is to give you an example
  of the naive way the notion of communication can be used.2 You will see that
  this can be taken a very long way, which people haven't failed to do.
  
  人们目前正在从事非常耐人寻味的运作。这种运作在于克服有某种边界领域呈现的某些困难。能指自身的使用的问题必须被介绍，确实凭借著我们有时讨论过的沟通的观念。我曾经将Tomkins的这篇文章放置在杂志的这期。这个杂志，你们大家都非常熟悉。就是要给予你们一个例子，对于沟通的观念能够被使用的天真的方式。你们将会看出，沟通的这个观念能够深入发展，人们曾经做到。
  
  There are people who will claim that the various orders of internal secretion
  inside an organism send one another messages in the form, for instance,
  of hormones that notify the ovaries that everything's going well, or on the
  contrary that there's a bit of a problem somewhere. Is this a legitimate use of
  the notions of communication and message? Why not, if a message is simply
  of the order of what takes place when we project a light beam, whether invisible or not, onto a photoelectric cell? This can be taken a very long way. If,
  on sweeping the sky with the beam of a spotlight, we see something appear
  in the middle, it may be taken as the sky's response. This produces its own
  criticism. But this is still to take things too lightly.
  
  有些人们将会宣称, 有机体里面的内部排泄的各种秩序，互相传送讯息，譬如，以荷尔蒙的形式，通知卵巢，每样事情进行顺利，或是相反地，在某个地方有点毛病。难道这就是合理地使用沟通与讯息的观念吗？有何不可呢？假如讯息仅是属于发生的事情的秩序，当我们投射一个光束进入影像电子的细胞，无论是可见或不可见。这能够非常深入地发挥。当我们用探照灯的光束横扫天空，假如我们看见某件东西出现在中央，它可以被认为是天空的回应。这产生它自己的批评。但是这依旧是将事情看得太轻松。
  
  When may one really speak of communication? You are going to tell me
  that it's obvious - there has to be a response. This is defensible, it's a question
  of definition. Shall we say that there is communication whenever a response
  is registered? But what's a response? There's only one way defining it, which
  is to say that it's when something returns to the starting point. This is the
  schema for feedback. Every return of something that, having been registered
  somewhere, thereby triggers an operation of regulation, constitutes a response.
  And this is where communication begins, with self-regulation.
  
  什么时候我们确实谈论沟通？你们将会告诉我，这沟通的显而易见的—沟通必须要有回应。这是能够自圆其说，那是定义的问题。我们难道会说，每当有回应被铭记时，沟通就存在。但是回应是什么？确实有一个方法来定义它。也就是说，那就是某件东西回到起始点。这就是回馈的基模。某件东西的每次回归，当它已经被铭记在某个地方，因此触发规则的运作，形成一种回应。这就是沟通开始的地方，具有自我的规范。
  
  But notwithstanding this, are we now at the level of the function of the
  signifier? I don't think so. In a thermoelectric machine supported by feedback
  the signifier is not employed. Why not? Isolating the signifier as such
  requires something else which, like any dialectical distinction in the first
  instance presents itself in a paradoxical manner. There is appropriate use of
  the signifier whenever, at the level of the receiver, what is important is not
  the effect of the content of the message, nor the triggering in the organ of a
  given reaction due to the appearance of a hormone, but this - that at the
  message's point of arrival one makes a note of it.
  
  但是尽管这样，我们现在难道是处于能指的功能的层次？我认为并不是。在由回馈所支持的热电效应机器，能指并没有被运用的。为什么没有被运用到？将能指的自身孤立起来，要求某件其它的东西。就像任何辩证法的第一个例子的区别一样，这个某件其它的东西以悖论的方式呈现它自己。能指会适当地被使用到，每当在接收者的层次，重要的并不是讯息内容的影响，也不是由于荷尔蒙的出现，某个特定的反应的器官的触动。而是这个，在讯息的到达点，我们注意到它。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-01 08:57:31

  精神病 213
  Does this imply a subjectivity? Look at it very closely. It's not certain that
  it does. What is distinctive about the existence of the signifier as such, the
  signifier which I have just been trying one more time to give a precise formulation
  to, insofar as it's a correlated system of elements that derive their
  place synchronically and diachronically in relation to one another?
  
  这难道就暗示着主体性？请你们仔细瞧看它。它并没有确定暗示着主体性。关于能指自身的存在显著不同的地方，我刚刚一直反复尝试要给予明确说明的能指。因为它是元素的相关系统，同时性及历时性地获得它们的位置，跟它们彼此的关系。
  
  I'm at sea, the captain of a small ship. I see things moving about in the
  night, in a way that gives me cause to think that there may be a sign there.
  How shall I react? If I'm not yet a human being, I shall react with all sorts of
  displays, as they say - modeled, motor, and emotional. I satisfy the descriptions
  of psychologists, I understand something, in fact I do everything I'm
  telling you that you must know how not to do. If on the other hand I am a
  human being, I write in my log book - At such and such a time, at such and
  such a degree of latitude and longitude, we noticed this and that.
  
  我处于海上，我是一条小船的船长。我看见各种东西在夜间到处移动。移动的方式让我有理由认为，那里可能有一个讯息。我该如何反应呢？假如我还不是一个人类，我将用各种的展示来反应，如人们所说的，用模拟，动力与情感的方式反应。我满足心理学的各种描述。我理解某件东西，事实上，我尽我所能告诉你们，你们一定要知道如何不要做。假如另一方面，我是一个人类，我在我的航海日志写著：「在某某时间，在某某经纬度，我们注意到这个及那个。」
  
  This is what is fundamental. I shelter my responsibility. What distinguishes
  the signifier is here. I make a note of the sign as such. It's the
  acknowledgment of receipt [Vaccusi de reception] that is essential to communication
  insofar as it is not significant, but signifying. If you don't articulate
  this distinction clearly, you will keep falling back upon meanings that can
  only mask from you the original mainspring of the signifier insofar as it carries
  out its true function.
  
  这就是基本的东西。我担负起我的责任。让能指显著不同的地方就在此，我记录讯息的自身。对于沟通重要的东西是承认接收到讯息。因为它并不是能指内涵，而是能指化动作。假如你们没有清楚地表达这种区别，你们将会持续依靠那些意义，那些意义仅会遮蔽能指的原初泉源，不让你们看见，当它执行它的真实的功能。
  
  Let's keep the following in mind. Even when inside an organism, whether
  living or not, things are transmitted that are founded upon the effectiveness
  of all or nothing, even when, by virtue of the fact that, for example, a threshold
  exists, there is something which doesn't exist below a certain level and
  then all of a sudden has a certain effect - keep the example of the hormones
  in mind - , we still can't speak of communication if by communication we
  imply the originality of the order of the signifier. Indeed, it isn't as all or
  nothing that something is a signifier, it's to the extent that something constituting
  a whole, the sign, exists and signifies precisely nothing. This is where
  the order of the signifier, insofar as it differs from the order of meaning,
  begins.
  
  让我们将以下记在心理。即使在有机体里面，无论它是有生命与否，各色各样的事情被传递，这些事情的基础上全有或全无。即使有门槛存在，凭借这个事实：譬如，在某个水平之下，有某件并不存在的东西，然后突然地，它具有某种的影响。请你们记住荷尔蒙的例子，我们依旧无法谈论到沟通，假如所谓的沟通，我们是暗示着能指的秩序的原创性。的确，某件东西是一个能指，并不是作为全有或全无。甚至某件东西形成一个整体。整体的这个讯息存在而且能指化的东西确实是空无。这是能指的秩序开始的地方，因为它不同于意义的秩序。
  
  If psychoanalysis teaches us anything, if psychoanalysis constitutes a novelty,
  it's precisely that the human being's development is in no way directly
  deducible from the construction of, from the interferences between, from the composition of, meanings, that is, instincts. The human world, the world
  that we know and live in, in the midst of which we orientate ourselves, and
  without which we are absolutely unable to orientate ourselves, doesn't only
  imply die existence of meanings, but the order of the signifier as well.
  
  假如精神分析教导我们任何东西，假如精神分析形成一种新奇，那确实是因为人类的发展根本就不是从意义的的建构，从意义之间的干预，从意义组成直接推论而来，也就是说，根本不是从各种本能直接推论而来。人类的世界，我们知道而且居住其间的世界，在这个世界当中，我们定位我们自己。假如没有这个世界，我们绝对没有办法定位我们自己，人类的世界并不仅仅暗示着各种意义的存在，而且也暗示着能指的秩序。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-01 16:16:30

  精神病 214
  
  If the Oedipus complex isn't the introduction of the signifier then I ask to
  be shown any conception of it whatever. The level of its elaboration is so
  essential to sexual normalization uniquely because it introduces the functioning
  of the signifier as such into the conquest of the said man or woman. It's
  not because the Oedipus complex is contemporary with the genital dimension
  or tendency that it's possible to imagine even for a single instant that it's
  essential to an actual human world, to a world that has its structure of human
  reality.
  
  假如伊狄浦斯情结并不是在介绍能指，那么我请问还有什么其它观念被显示。伊狄浦斯情结的建构的层次上如此重要，对于性别的正常化，独特地是因为它介绍能指的功能自身，进入征服以上所说的男人与女人。它并不是因为伊狄浦斯情结，就性器官的向度而言，是属于当代，或就想像的可能的倾向而言，即使是瞬间的想像。对于一个实际的人类的世界而言，这是很重要的，对于拥有它的人类现实界的结构的世界。
  
  Think about it for a second - if there is something that is clearly unsuited
  to introducing articulation and differentiation into the world, it's the genital
  function. That which in its strict essence tends towards the most mysterious
  of effusions is that which is the most paradoxical in relation to any real structuring
  of the world. It's not the instinctual dimension that is operative in the
  stage to be passed through in the Oedipus complex. In this respect, it's on
  the contrary the so highly diverse material we are shown by the pregenital
  stages that enables us to imagine easily how, by analogy with meaning, the
  mode of matter, to call it by its name, is linked up to what man has in his
  immediate field. The bodily, excremental, pregenital, exchanges are quite
  adequate for structuring a world of objects, a world of complete human reality,
  that is, one in which there are subjectivities.
  
  请你们思考它一下。假如有某件东西显而易见地不适合于介绍表达与差异进入这个世界，那就是性器官的功能。就它严格的本质而言，倾向于朝向最神秘的奔放的东西，就是跟这个世界的任何真实结构相关的最大悖论。在这个阶段，运作的本能的维度，在伊狄浦斯情结应该被通过的阶段。就这个层面而言，相反地，它是高度多样化的材料，前性器官的阶段显示给予我们。它让我们能够容易地想像，凭借跟意义的类比，物质的模式，姑且这样说，跟人类在他的当下的领域所拥有的东西密切关联。身体的，排泄的，前器官的交换，完全足够来作为各种客体的世界的结构，完整的人类的现实界的世界。换句话说，在这个世界，存在各种的主体性。
  
  There's no other scientific definition of subjectivity than one that proceeds
  from the possibility of handling the signifier for purely signifying, not significant
  ends, that is, expressing no direct relation of the order of appetite.
  Things are simple. But the subject still has to acquire, conquer, the order
  of the signifier, be given his place in a relationship of implication that attains
  his being, which results in the formation of what in our language we call the
  superego. One doesn't have to go very deeply into analytic literature to see
  that the use made of this concept is congenial to the definition of the signifier,
  which is that it signifies nothing and is therefore always capable of yielding
  various meanings. For us the superego raises the question of what is the order
  of entrance, of introduction, of present instance, of the signifier, which is
  indispensable to the functioning of a human organism that has to come to
  terms not only with a natural environment but with a signifying universe.
  
  主体性没有其他的科学的定义，除了就是这个定义，从处理能指的可能的前进的定义，为了纯粹能指化，而非所指的目的。换句话说，表达的并不是食欲秩序的直接的关系。事情是单纯的。但是主体依旧必须获得，征服，能指的秩序应该被给予他的位置，在获得他的生命实存的暗示的关系。这种关系造成在我们的语言所谓的超我的形成。我们并不需要对精神分析文献深入研究，我们才会看见，对于这个观念的使用，会跟能指点定义和谐一致。能指并没有意涵任何东西，因此，能指总是能够产生各式各样的意义。对于我们而言，超我提出这个问题：进入的秩序，介绍的秩序，目前情况的秩序，能指的秩序，它们究竟是什么？对于人类有机体的功能作用，不但跟自然环境，而且跟能指化的宇宙，必须互相妥协，这个能指是绝对必需的。
  
  Here we return to the crossroads at which I left you last time on the subject
  of the neuroses. What do symptoms result from, if it's not from the human
  organism's being implicated in something that is structured like a language,
  whereby such and such an element of its functioning will come into play as a
  signifier? I went further on this topic last time, taking the example of hysteria.
  
  在此，我们回转到这个十字路口，我上次探讨神经症的主体时，让你们停留在那里。那些病征是因什么而形成，难道不就是因为人类的有机体被牵涉进入某件像语言一般的结构里。凭借着语言，它的功能的某某元素才能运作作为能指？上次，我探讨这个主题时较为深入，拿歇斯底里症作为例子。
  
  Hysteria is a question centered on a signifier that remains enigmatic as
  to its meaning. The question of death and the question of birth are as it
  happens the two ultimate questions that have precisely no solution in the
  signifier. This is what gives neurotics their existential value.
  
  歇斯底里症的问题集中于始终保持谜团一般的能指，关于它的意义。死亡的问题，以及诞生的问题，偶然地成为两个最后的问题。在能指身上，这两个问题确实没有答案。这就是为什么神经症会被给予他们的生命实存的价值。
  
  Now for the psychoses. What do they mean? What is the function of the
  subject's relationships to the signifier in the psychoses? We have already tried
  to spell this out on a number of occasions. The reason that we are always
  thus forced to investigate things in a roundabout way must lie in the question
  itself. We're obliged to acknowledge this for the moment. There is an obstacle
  here, a resistance, which will yield its meaning only to the extent that we
  have gone into things deeply enough to explain why things are like this.
  
  现在谈到精神病。它们是什幺意思？在精神病，主体跟能指的关系的功能是什么？我们已经尝试在许多的场合说明这点。我们之所以不得不以拐弯抹角的方式来研究事情，原因就在于这个问题的本身。我们不得不暂时承认这一点。在此有一个阻碍，一个抗拒，它将会产生意义，仅有当我们足够深入事情，来解释为什么事情会是像这个样子。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-03 09:40:44

  精神病 216
  3
  Let's explore the problem again with the aim of taking a further step forward,
  as we've done on each occasion.
  
  让我们再次探索这个问题，为了更进一步前进，如同我们在每个场合所为。
  
  You remember the schema we arrived at. I pointed out to you that there
  must have been something there that had not materialized, at a certain moment,
  in the field of the signifier, that had been verworfen, thereby making the
  object of a Verwerfung reappear in the real. This mechanism is distinct from
  everything that in other ways we know from our experience, concerning the
  relationships between the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real.
  
  你们记得我们到达的这个基模。我跟你们指出，当时一定有某件东西在那里，还没有被物质化。在某个时刻，在能指的领域，某个已经是被抛弃verworfen的东西，因此让除权弃绝Verwerflung的客体重新出现在实在界。这个机制不同于每一样我们根据我们的经验，用其他方式知道的东西。关于想象界，象征界，与实在界之间的关系。
  
  Freud gave powerful expression, in the text on Schreber we're working on
  among others, to the radical distinction between passional conviction and
  delusional conviction. The former depends upon the projection of intentions.
  It is, for example, jealousy where I'm jealous of my own feelings in the other,
  where it's my own drives to be unfaithful that I impute to the other. As to
  the second, Freud formulates it thus, that what has been rejected from within
  reappears without, or again, as one tries to say in an expanded form, that
  what has been suppressed in the idea reappears in the real. But what does
  this mean, exactly?
  
  弗洛依德给予强烈的表达，在我们正在探讨的论许瑞伯的文本。他表达
  这个强烈的差异，激情的信仰与幻觉的信仰之间的差异。前者依靠意图性的投射。譬如，当我妒忌我自己在它者的感觉，那是妒嫉，那是我自己想要不忠实的冲动，我灌输给它者的冲动。至于后者，弗洛依德如此说明它。从内部曾经被排除的东西，从外部会再出现，或反复出现，当我们尝试用扩散的形态来说。在理型里曾经被压抑的东西，重新出现在实在界。但是，那确实是什么意思？
  
  In neurosis, too, we see this action of the drive and its consequences. Doesn't
  this formulation leave something to be desired, something confused, defective,
  even absurd? Every author confines himself to this formulation, and in
  putting it to you in this form I wasn't wanting to contribute anything original.
  
  在神经症也是一样，我们看见冲动的这个行动及其结果。这个说明难道不是留下某件可挑剔的东西吗？某件混淆，缺陷，甚至是荒谬的东西？每位作者都将他自己限制在这个说明里面。当我用这种形式跟你们表达时，我并没有想要贡献什么原创性的东西。
  
  I think I can find someone among you to help me look more closely at
  the works in which Katan has tried to grasp the mechanism of psychotic neoformation.
  You will observe what an extraordinary dead-end he arrives at,
  from which he escapes only at the price of contradictory formulations. This
  testifies to the conceptual difficulties one is committed to if one confuses,
  however slightly, the notion of reality with that of objectivity, or even with
  that of meaning, if one moves away from a reality distinct from the test of
  the real, from a reality in the sentiment of the real.
  
  我认为我能够找到你们中间的某个人来帮忙我更加仔细地观看这些著作。在那里，卡坦曾经尝试理解精神病的异常形成的心理机制。你们将会观察到，他陷入一种特别的僵局。他说明得矛盾百出，才勉强逃离出来。这证明人们会被困陷于观念上的各种困境，假如他混淆现实界的这个观念，即使是多么的微不足道的观念，跟不同于实在界的测试不同的现实界，跟实在界的情感的现实界不同的现实界。
  
  An entire phenomenological supposition, which extends well beyond the
  fie|d of psychoanalysis and holds sway there only insofar as it equally holds
  sway elsewhere, is based on confusing the realm of meaningfulness with the
  realm of meaning. Proceeding from works that are extremely rigorous elaborations
  upon the function of the signifier, supposedly psychological phenomenology
  slides into the realm of meaning. This is its basic point of
  confusion. It's led towards it like a dog on a scent, and, like the dog, this will
  never lead it to any kind of scientific result.
  
  整个现象学的假设，它充分地延伸超越精神分析的领域，并且仅有当它同样地在别的地方具有影响力时，它才具有影响力。这整个现象学的假设的基础，是将所指意义的领域，与能指意义的领域混淆。那些著作极端严谨的建构能指的功能，从那里前进，心理的现象学被认为是滑进能指意义的领域。这就是它基本的混淆点。它被引导朝向它，就像狗嗅着味道前进。这将无法引导它到任何的科学的成果。
  
  You know the would-be opposition between Erkldren and Verstehen. Here
  we must maintain that the only scientific structure is where there is Erkldren,
  Verstehen opens onto all kinds of confusion. Erkldren doesn't at all imply
  mechanical meaning or anything else of that order. The nature of Erkldren
  lies in the recourse to the signifier as the sole foundation of all conceivable
  scientific structuration.
  
  你们知道，这是将法理的解释Erkdren 与个人的理解Verstehen之间的对立。在此，我们必主张，这个唯一的科学的结构就是法理的解释Erkldren的所在。个人的理解Verstehen展开产生各种的混淆.法理的解释Erkldren 根本就没有暗示机制的意义，或任何那种秩序的任何东西。法理的解释Erkldren 的特性在于诉诸于能指，作为是唯一的基础，各种可被构想的科学的结构的唯一的基础。
  
  At the beginning of the Schreber case we find a period of disorder, of fertile
  moment. It presents a whole set of symptoms which, because it has generally
  been hidden away or, more exactly, because it has slipped through our fingers,
  has been unable to be elucidated analytically and is most of the time
  only reconstructed. Now, in reconstructing it we can discover, with very few
  exceptions, what appear to be the meanings and mechanisms we see at work
  in neurosis. There is nothing that more closely resembles a neurotic symptomatology
  than a prepsychotk symptomatology. Once the diagnosis has been
  made, we are told that one finds that the unconscious is displayed on the
  outside, that everything belonging to the id has passed into the external world, and that the meanings in play are so clear that we are precisely unable to
  intervene analytically.
  
  在许瑞伯个案的开始，我们发现有一段疾病的时期，丰富的时刻。它呈现一整套的病症。这一整套的病症一直无法被分析诠释，通常仅是被重新建构，因为它一直被隐藏，或更贴切地说，因为它从我们的手指间溜走。现在，当我们重新建构它时，我们能够没有什么例外地发现，在神经症，我们看见看起来像是能指意义与心理机制正在运作的东西。最酷似神经症的病症学，莫过于神经症前期的病症。一旦诊断已经被确立，我们被告诉，我们发现无意识从外面被展示，每一样属于本我id的东西，已经通过进入外在的世界。运作的意义上如此清楚，以致我们确实无法从精神分析干涉。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-04 11:07:51

  精神病217
  
  This is the classical position, and it still has some value. The paradox it
  contains has escaped nobody, but all the reasons that have been advanced to
  explain it are of a tautological or contradictory character. They are superstructurations
  of totally absurd hypotheses. It suffices to take an interest in
  analytic literature as a symptom to realize this.
  
  这是古典的立场，它依旧有些价值。它包含的悖论，每个人均可看出。但是为了解释它，所提出的一切理由，都属于同义反复，或悖论的特性。它们纯粹是荒谬的假设的超级结构。用来对精神分析文献感到興趣，作为实践这个的病征，也就绰绰有余。
  
  Where does it spring from? From the fact that the world of objects is in
  some way affected, captured, induced, by a meaning in relation with drives
  characteristic of the psychoses? Is the construction of an external world distinctive
  of the psychoses? However, if there is any way of equally defining
  neurosis, this is it. When do we decide that the subject has crossed over the
  limits, that he is delusional?
  
  它起源于哪里? 它起源于这个事实：客体的世界在某种方式受到跟精神病的特性的冲动相关的意义所影响，而且被捕捉与诱导。外在世界的建构是精神病的显著表征吗？可是，假如有任何方法同样地定义神经征，这就是了。我们何时决定，主体已经跨越过这些极限，他已经是幻觉状态？
  
  Take the prepsychotic period. Our President Schreber is living out something
  in the nature of perplexity. He gives us in living form this question that
  I was saying lies at the bottom of every form of neurosis. He is prey to strange
  forebodings - he indicates this to us after the event. He is abruptly invaded
  by this image which would seem to be the least likely to enter the mind of a
  man of his kind and his style, that it really must be rather pleasant to be a
  woman succumbing to intercourse. This is a period of confusion and panic.
  
  拿精神病前期作为例子。我们的许瑞伯庭长正在实践带有困惑性质的某件东西。他用活生生的方式给出我正在说的这个问题。这个问题作为各种的神经症的基础。他是奇怪的预兆的猎物。在事件过后，他跟我们指示这个。他突然地受到这个意象的侵犯。这个意象，在跟他相同与他的风格的人的心灵，是匪夷所思的。成为一位屈服于性交媾的女人，是相当令人愉快的。这就是混淆与惊慌的时期。
  
  How are we to locate the border between this moment of confusion and the
  point at which his delusion ended with the construction that he was in actual
  fact a woman, and not just any woman, but the divine woman, or more exactly
  God's fiancee? Is there anything here that is sufficient for locating the onset
  of psychosis? Certainly not. Katan reports a case that he saw declare itself at
  a much earlier period than Schreber's, and about which he was able to form
  a direct idea, having come onto the scene at the turning point of the case.3
  
  我们应该如何定位这个边界，处于混淆与幻觉终结的时刻之间的边界。幻觉终结时的建构：他实际上是一个女人，不仅仅是任何女人，而是神圣的女人。或更确实地说，上帝的未婚妻。在此，有任何东西足够来定位精神病的开始吗？当然没有。卡坦报导一个他看见的个案。这个个案宣称自己处于比许瑞伯的时期还有早。关于这个个案，他能够形成一个直接的观念，因为在个案的转捩点，他已经进入现场。
  
  It
  was the case of a youth at the age of puberty, whose whole prepsychotic
  period the author analyses very well, while conveying the idea that there was
  nothing in this subject of the order of accession to anything that would realize
  in him the virile type. Everything failed. And while he did try to conquer the
  typically virile attitude, it was by means of imitation, of a latching on, following
  the example of one of his friends. Like him and following him, he engaged
  in the first sexual maneuvers of puberty, namely masturbation, which he
  subsequenly renounced under the injunction of the said friend, and he began
  to identify with him for a whole series of exercises that were called exercises
  of self-conquest. He behaved as if he were at the mercy of a severe father,
  which was the case with his friend. Like him, he became interested in a girl
  who, as if by chance, was the same one his friend was interested in. And once
  this identification with his friend has gone quite a way, the young girl will
  readily fall into his arms.
  
  这个个案是一位处于青春期的年轻人。对于他的精神病前期，作者分析得很清楚，并且表达这个观念：在主体身上，没有任何东西属于接受任何能够在他身上显现男子汉气概的东西。每样东西都没有办法。虽然他确实尝试过要征服这种典型的男子汉气概的东西。那是凭借模拟的方式，凭借攀附的方式，遵循他的一位朋友的榜样。像他的朋友并且跟随他，他从事青春期的第一次性的动作。也就是手淫。随后在上述的那位朋友的劝告下，放弃手淫的动作。他开始认同他，从事一连串的运动，所谓征服自我的运动。他的行为好像他听从一位严厉的父亲的支配。就他的朋友的情况是如此。像他的朋友一样，他对一位女孩感到興趣，好像巧合地，他的朋友也对相同的这位女孩感到興趣。一旦对他的朋友的这种认同发展到某个程度，这位年轻女孩很快地投入他的怀抱。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-04 17:01:40

  218
  Here we obviously find the as if mechanism that Mrs. Helene Deutsch has
  stressed as being a significant dimension in the symptomatology of the schi-
  zophrenias.4 It's a mechanism of imaginary compensation - you can verify
  the usefulness of the distinction between the three registers - for the absent
  Oedipus complex, which would have given him virility in the form, not of
  the paternal image, but of the signifier, the name of the father.
  
  在此，我们明显地发现，海伦尼、德奇曾经强调的「好像」的这个心理机制，作为是一个重要的维度，在精神分裂症的病症学。那是想象的补偿的心理机制。你们能够证实这三个铭记之间的区别的用途。对于缺席的伊狄浦斯情结，那本来会给予他作为男子汉气概的形式，不是属于父权的意象的形式，而是属于能指，父亲的名字的形式。
  
  Once the psychosis has broken out, the subject will conduct himself in the
  same way as before, as an unconscious homosexual. No meaning emerges
  that is fundamentally different from the prepsychotic period. All his conduct
  in relation to the friend, who was the pivotal element in his attempt at structuration
  at the time of puberty, can be rediscovered in his delusion. When
  did he start to delude? When he said that his father was pursuing him to kill
  him, to rob him, to castrate him. All the contents implied in neurotic meanings
  are there. But the essential point, which isn't highlighted, is that the
  delusion began the moment the initiative came from the Other, with a capital
  O, when the initiative was founded on a subjective activity. The Other wants
  this, and above all he wants this to be known, he wants to signify it.
  
  一旦精神病已经爆发，主体将会像以前一样表现他的行为，作为是无意识的同性恋。并没有跟精神病前期基本上有差异的意义出现。所有他跟这位朋友有关的行为，在他青春期的结构的企图，这位朋友是轴心的因素。所有他的行为都能够在他的幻觉里重新发现。他什么时候开始有幻觉？当他说，他的父亲正在追逐他，为了杀死他，抢劫他，阉割他。在神经症的意义暗示的内容都在那里。但是重要的部分并没有被强调，那就是，当创议来自大他者，具有大写字母的大他者the Other ，幻觉就开始。当创议的基础是主体的活动。大他者想要这个，尤其重要的是，他想要给它能指意义。
  
  As soon as there is a delusion, we enter at full tilt upon the domain of
  intersubjectivity, where the whole problem is to know why it's fantasized.
  But in the name of fantasy, omnipresent in neurosis, attached as we are to its
  meaning, we forget its structure, namely that it's a question of signifiers, of
  signifiers as such, handled by a subject for signifying aims, signifying so purely
  that the meaning very often remains problematic. What we have encountered
  in this symptomatology always implies what I indicated to you last year in
  relation to the dream of Irma's injection - the inmixing5 of subjects.
  
  一旦幻觉存在，我们就一面倒地进入互为主体间的领域。在那里，整个的问题就是要知道为什么幻觉被幻想。但是以幻想的名义，神经症的无所不在，虽然我们跟它的意义紧密关联，我们忘记它的结构。也就是说，这是能指的问题，能指本身的问题。能指受到主体的操控，为了给予能指意义的目的。能指如此纯粹地给予能指意义，以致所得的意义往往问题重重。在这个病征学，我们所遭遇的东西总是暗示着：我去年跟你们指示的东西，跟艾玛注射的梦有关。那就是主体的混淆。
  
  It's characteristic of the intersubjective dimension that you have a subject
  in the real capable of using the signifier as such, that is, to speak, not so as
  to inform you, but precisely so as to lure you. This possibility is what is
  distinctive about the existence of the signifier. But this isn't all. As soon as
  there is a subject and use of the signifier, use of the between-I [l'entre-je] is
  possible, that is to say, of the interposed subject. This inmixing of subjects
  is one of the most obvious elements in the dream of Irma's injection. Recall
  the three practitioners called in one by one by Freud, who wants to know
  what it is that's in Irma's throat. And these three farcical characters operate, defend theses, talk only nonsense. They are the between-I's, who play an
  essential role here.
  
  这是互为主体性的维度的特性：你们在实在界能拥有一个主体，能够使用能指的本身。换句话说，言说，并不是要告诉你讯息，而是确实是要引诱你。这个可能性是，关于能指的存在，凸显出来的东西。但是这还并不是全部。当主体存在，并且使用能指，对于各种「我」之间的使用是可能的。换句话说，对于互相重叠的主体的使用。在「艾玛的注射的梦」，主体的混淆是最明显的因素之一。请你们回忆一下，弗洛依德各别请来三位医生，因为他想要知道在艾玛的喉咙里，那是什么东西。那三位滑稽的人物各自辩解那是什么，都仅是无稽之谈。他们处于各种的「我」之间。这些各种的「我」在扮演重要的角色。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-04 19:26:42

  精神病 219
  
  They are marginal to Freud's inquiry, whose major preoccupation at this
  time is defense. In a letter to Fliess he says this -I am right in the middle of
  what is outside nature.6 This is what defense is, in effect, insofar as it has an
  essential relationship to the signifier, not to the prevalence of meaning, but
  to idolatry of the signifier as such. This is merely a pointer. ;
  
  它们是弗洛依德的研究的边缘。弗洛依德在此时的研究的主要专注是防卫。在给弗利斯的信中，他这样说：「我正处于自然之外的东西之间」。实际上，这就是防卫的性质。因为它跟能指具有一种基本的关系，不是跟能指意义的佔优势的关系，而是跟崇拜能指的本身的关系。这仅是一个指标。
  
  Isn't it precisely the inmixing of subjects that appears in delusion? This is
  a characteristic that is so essential to any intersubjective relation that, it may
  be said, there is no language that doesn't include quite special grammatical
  expressions to indicate it.
  
  这难道不确实就是主体出现在幻觉里的混淆？这是一个如此重要的特性，对于任何的互为主体性的关系。以致于我们可以说，每个语言都包括相当特别的文法的表达，用来指示它。
  
  I‘ll give you an example. It's all the difference there is between The head
  of department who had this patient operated on by his resident and The head of
  department who was to operate on this patient had him operated on by his resident.7
  You must be able to see that, although they lead to the same action, they
  mean two completely different things. It's this that is constantly involved in
  delusion. One makes them do this. This is where the problem lies, we are a
  long way from being able just simply to say that the id is quite abruptly
  present and reappears in the real.
  
  我将给予你们一个例子。这就是所有的差异所在，「学院的院长让这位病人由他的实习医生来动手术」跟「想要对病人动手术的学院院长，却让他的实习医生来动手术」，中间的差异。你们一定能够看出，虽然他们导致的行动都一样，他们的用意缺少完全不一样。在幻觉不断地牵涉的就是这个。有人要他们去做这个。这就是问题棘手所在。我们根本还不能够仅是说：这个「本我id」完全突然地存在，并且重新出现在实在界。
  
  At the heart of the psychoses there is a dead end, perplexity concerning
  the signifier. Everything takes place as if the subject were reacting to this by
  an attempt at restitution, at compensation. Fundamentally the crisis is
  undoubtedly unleashed by some question or other. Which is . . . ? I've got
  no idea. I suppose that the subject reacts to the signifier's absence by all the
  more emphatically affirming another one that as such is essentially enigmatic.
  
  在精神病的核心，有一个僵局，关于这个能指的困惑。每样事情发生，都好像主体正在反应这个，凭借企图重新形成，企图补偿。基本上，这个危机无可置疑地，是由某个问题释放出来。那就是、、、？我不知道。我认为主体对于这个能指的缺席作反应，更加强调地肯定另外一个自身是谜团的能指。
  
  I told you that the Other with a big O, qua bearer of the signifier, is excluded.
  The Other is thereby all the more powerfully affirmed between it and the
  subject, at the level of the little other, of the imaginary. This is where all the
  between-I phenomena that make up what is apparent in the symptomatology
  of psychosis take place - at the level of the other subject, of the one who
  holds the initiative in the delusion - in the case of Schreber, Professor Flechsig
  or God who is potentially so seductive that he places the world order in
  danger by virtue of the attraction.
  
  我告诉你们，具有大写字母的大他者the Other，作为能指的载负者，被排除在外。大他者因此更加有力量地被肯定，处于它与主体之间。处于小他者的层次，处于想象界的层次。这就是所有的各种的「我」之间的现象发生的地方，在精神病的病征学，它们组成显而易见的东西。在另一个主体的层次，在拥有幻觉的创议的这个它者主体。以许瑞伯的个案为例，弗列西格或是上帝，潜在地如此引诱，以致于他凭借这种吸引力，将世界的秩序陷于危险当中。
  
  It's at the level of the between-I, that is, of the little other, of the subject's
  double, who is both his ego and not his ego, that words appear that are a
  kind of running commentary on existence. We observe this phenomenon in
  mental automatism, but it's much more accentuated here, as there is a sort
  of teasing use of the signifier in the sentences that are begun then interrupted.
  
  在这个两种「我」之间的层次，也就是说，小他者的层次，主体的双重人的层次，他们既是他的自我，也不是他的自我。文字出现，作为一种对于生命实存的连续评论。我们观察到精神的自动化的这个现象。但是，它在此更加被强调，因为有一种带着揶揄的使用能指，在被开始然后被中断的句子里。
  
  That level of the signifier which is that of the sentence comprises a middle, a
  beginning, and an end, and thus requires a conclusion. This is what enables
  the play upon expectation, a slowing down that occurs at the imaginary level
  of the signifier, as if the solution to the enigma, for want of being able to be
  formulated in any really open manner other than through the primordial
  assertion of the other's initiative, is given by showing that it's a question of
  the signifier.
  
  能指的层次，也是句子的层次，形成中间，开始，及结尾。因此需要一个结论。这是为什么期待能够运作的原因。期待是一种缓慢动作，发生在能指的想象的层次，好像对于谜团的解答被给予，凭借显示这是一个能指的问题。因为它不能够用任何确实是公开的方式来说明，除了就是凭借大他者的创议的原初的主张。
  
  Just as the formula in bold letters that appears at the conclusion to the
  dream of Irma's injection shows the solution to what is at the end of Freud's
  desire - nothing more important in effect than a formula of organic chemistry
  - so we find, in the phenomenon of delusion, in the commentaries and in the
  buzzing of discourse in its pure form, the indication that it's a question of
  the signifier.
  11 April 1956
  
  正如用黑体字凸显的公式，出现在「艾玛的注射的梦」，显示弗洛依德的欲望的结束的东西的解答。实际上，有机体的化学变化的公式是最重要不过。在幻觉的现象学，在辞说的纯粹状态的各种评论与杂音，我们发现到这个指示：这是一个能指的问题。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-05 11:44:57

  精神病 220
  On primordial signifiers and the lack of one
  论原初的能指与作为一的欠缺
  A CROSSROADS
  十字路口
  BASIC SIGNIFIERS
  基本的能指
  A NEW SIGNIFIER IN THE REAL
  实在界的新的能指
  APPROACHES TO THE HOLE
  接近空洞
  IDENTIFICATORY COMPENSATION
  认同的补偿
  
  The distinction I have been insisting upon this year between the signifier and
  the signified turns out to be particularly justified by examination of the psychoses.
  Today I would like to make you feel this.
  
  我今年一直在坚持的区别，对于能指与所指之间的区别，结果证明书特别能自圆其说，凭借用来检视精神病。今天，我想要让你们感觉这个。
  
  1
  What are we looking for, we analysts, when we investigate a mental disturbance,
  whether it's confirmed in a patent manner or is latent, whether it
  masks itself or reveals itself in symptoms or conduct? We are always looking
  for meaning. This is what makes us different. The psychoanalyst is credited
  with not letting himself be deceived over the true meaning. When he uncovers
  the significance that an object has acquired for the subject, the register of
  meaning is always involved, that of a meaning which he regards as concerning
  the subject in some way. This is where I want you to pause, for there is a
  crossroads here.
  
  我们正在寻找什么？我们精神分析家，当我们研究一个精神上的疾病。无论它被肯定，用专利的方式，无论它让它自己被显示，在病征或在行为里？我们总是寻找意义。这就是我们与众不同的地方。精神病的分析家被推崇，因为不让他自己被欺骗，关于真实的意义。当分析家揭发客体曾经获得的意义，给予主体，意义的铭记总是牵涉在内。他认为意义的铭记作为在某方面是跟主体有关。这就是我想要你们停顿的地方。因为在此有一个十字路口。
  
  The interest, the desire, the craving, which captures the subject in a meaning
  leads to a search for its type, mold, preformation, in the register of
  instinctual relations in which this subject appears correlated to an object -
  hence the construction of the theory of instincts, the foundations on which
  the analytic discovery rests. Here we have a relational world or, I should
  almost say, maze which comprises so many bifurcations, communications,
  turnings back, as to leave us satisfied - that is to say, ultimately, that we lose
  ourselves in them. This is a tangible fact in our daily handling of these meanings.
  
  将主体捕捉在意义里的興趣，欲望，与渴望，导致对它的种类，模式与形成的追寻，在本能的关系的铭记里。在那里，这个主体似乎跟客体息息相关。因此，本能的理论的建构，精神分析的发现就是依靠这些作为基础。在此，我们有一个关系的世界，我几乎要说是，一个关系的迷宫。这个迷宫有如许多的交叉关系，沟通，回转组成，所以我们感到满意。换句话说，最后，我们迷失在里面。这是具体的事实，在我们日常处理这些意义时。
  
  Take homosexual attachment as an example, which is an essential component
  of the Oedipal drama. We say that the meaning of the homosexual relation
  tends to emerge in the inverted Oedipus complex. In the case of neurosis
  we say most of the time that the subject defends against this attachment that
  is more or less latent in his conduct, but still tends to appear. We speak of
  defense - it has several modes. We look for its cause, which we define as the
  fear of castration. We are never short of an explanation, moreover - if this
  one won't do, we shall find another one.
  
  拿同性恋的情感作例子吧，这是伊狄浦斯戏剧的主要成分。我们说，同性恋的关系的意义倾向于出现在倒转的伊狄浦斯情结。在神经症的个案，我们通常都说，主体防卫对抗这种在他的行为相当潜在的情感，但是依旧倾向于出现。我们谈论防卫—防卫有好几种模式。我们寻找它的原因。我们定义防卫，作为是恐惧阉割。而且，我们从来就不欠缺解释。假如这个解释行不通，我们将寻找另外一种解释。
  
  But whether it be this one here or another one, isn't it apparent, as the
  slightest familiarity with analytic literature will show, that the question of the
  order of coherence at work is never raised?
  
  但是无论是否是在此的这个，或另外一个，这难道不是显而易见的吗？跟精神分析文献稍有接触，我们就会看出，运作中的一致性的秩序的问题从来没有被提出。
  
  Why should we allow that the homosexual orientation of libidinal investment
  involves causal coherence for the subject from the outset? In what way
  does being captured by the homosexual imago entail for the subject that he
  lose his penis? What is the order of causality that implies what is known as
  the primary process? Up to what point is a causal relation to be admitted
  here? What are the modes of causality that the subject fears in imaginary
  capture? Is it sufficient that we observe this imaginary relation - with all its
  implications, which are themselves constructed since it's a question of the
  imaginary - for it to be given in the subject, whereas we see it from the
  outside?
  
  为什么我们承认，同性恋对于生命力比多的投注的定向，从一开始，对于主体而言，会牵涉到因果关系的一致性。用怎样的方式，受到同性恋的意象的捕捉，对于主体而言，涵盖著，他丧失他的阴茎？暗示着众所周知的原初的过程的因果关系的秩序是什么？直到哪一点，因果关系在此被承认？在想象的捕捉里，主体恐惧的因果关系的模式是什么？这是足够的吗？我们观察想象的关系，以及它所有的暗示。这些暗示本身被建构，因为这是想象界的问题。为了让它在主体身上被给予，虽然我们是从外面看见它。
  
  I'm not saying that we are wrong to think that the fear of castration,
  with all its consequences, enters into play automatically in a male subject
  caught in the pacifying capture of the homosexual relation. I'm saying that
  we never question it. And there would no doubt be different answers according
  to different cases. The causal coherence here is constructed, through an
  unwarranted extrapolation from things of the imaginary onto the real. When
  it is the pleasure principle, resolution and return to an equilibrium, a requirement
  of desire, that is at issue, we quite naturally slide into bringing the
  reality principle - or something else - into play.
  
  我并不是说，我们是错误的，假如我们认为对于阉割的恐惧，以及阉割的一切结果，在男性主体身上自动运转，当主体深陷于同性恋关系的逐渐平和的捕捉。我说的是，我们从来没有质疑它。无可置疑地，依照个案的不同，答案也将会是不同。在此的因果关系的一致性被建构，凭借从想象界的事物没有保证地被并列到实在界。当我们提到快乐原则，解决与回到欲望的一种平衡，一种要求。那是具有争议，我们相当自然地掉入现实原则的运作，或是某件其他东西。
  
  This enables us to return to our crossroads. Desire is at first sight understood
  as an essentially imaginary relation. Setting out from here, we set about
  cataloguing instincts, their equivalences and interconnections. Let's instead
  stop and ask ourselves whether these are merely biological laws that render a
  number of meanings instinctually interesting for the human subject. What
  part does that which depends on the signifier play in all this?
  
  这让我们能够回到十字路口。乍然一看，欲望被理解作为是基本上想象界的关系。当我们从这里出发，我们开始将各种本能分类，本能的相等物极互相交流的东西。代替的，让我们停下来寻问我们自己，这些是否仅是生物的法则，对人类的主体而言，让许多意义在本能方面引人興趣。在这一切当中，依靠能指的东西扮演怎样的角色？
  
  In fact, the signifier, with its own action and insistence, intervenes in all of the human being's interests - however profound, primitive, elementary
  we suppose them to be.
  
  事实上，能指具有它自己的行动与坚持，能指介入人类所有的興趣，无论我们认为这些興趣是多么的深奥，原始，基本。
  
  I have spent days and lessons trying by all available means to give you a
  glimpse of what we might provisionally call the autonomy of the signifier,
  that is, the fact that it has its own laws. Undoubtedly, they are extremely
  difficult to isolate, since we always set the signifier to work among meanings.
  This is to state the interest of linguistic considerations on the problem. It's
  impossible to study how this phenomenon called language, which is the most
  fundamental of inter human relations, functions unless one draws this distinction
  between the signifier and the signified from the outset. And the step I
  ask you to take in this seminar is to follow me when I say to you that the
  sense of the analytic discovery isn't simply to have found meanings but to
  have gone much further than anyone has ever gone in reading them, namely
  right to the signifier. That this fact is neglected explains the dead ends, the
  confusions, the circles and tautologies, that analytic research encounters.
  
  我已经花费了好几天的课程，凭借各自可用的方式，尝试给予你们瞥见我们暂时所谓的能指的自主性。换句话说，能指具有它自己的法则的这个事实。无可置疑地，它们是极端困难予以孤立出来，因为我们总是在意义当中触发能指。这就是要陈述语言学对问题的考虑的興趣。我们不可能研究所谓的语言的各种现象如何发挥功能，因为语言是内部的人的最基本的关系，除非我们从一开始就区别能指与所指之间的不同。在这个研讨班，我要求你们採取的一个步骤，就是跟随我，每当我跟你们说，精神分析发现的意义，并不仅是已经找到意义，而且是比任何其他阅读它们的人都更加深入。换句话说，直接深入到能指。这个事实受到忽视，说明精神分析遭遇到的这个僵局，这个混乱，迴圈与同义反复。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-06 11:00:10

  精神病 223
  
  2
  The mainspring of the analytic discovery isn't to be found in the so-called
  libidinal or instinctual meanings relative to a whole range of behavior. These
  exist, it's true. But in the human being those meanings that are the closest to
  need, meanings that are relative to the most purely biological insertion into a
  nutritive and captivating environment, primordial meanings, are, in their
  sequence and in their very foundation, subject to laws that are the laws of the
  signifier.
  
  精神分析发现的主要动力，并无法在生命力比多或本能的意义里被找到，尽管它们跟行为的全部范畴息息相关。的确，它们存在那儿。但是在人类身上，最迫切需要的那些意义，隶属于法则，能指的法则。因为这些意义跟完全是生物层面的插入息息相关，插入于滋养与令人迷惑的环境。那些原初的意义，由于它们的系列与它们的基础，都隶属于法则，能指的法则。
  
  If I spoke to you about day and night, it was to make you feel that the day,
  the very notion of the day, the word day, the notion of the coming of the day,
  is something that is properly speaking ungraspable in any reality. The opposition
  between day and night is a signifying opposition, which goes infinitely
  beyond all the meanings it may ultimately cover, indeed beyond every kind
  of meaning. If I took day and night as examples, it's of course because our
  subject is man and woman. The signifier man and the signifier woman are
  something other than a passive attitude and an active attitude, an aggressive
  attitude and a yielding attitude, something other than forms of behavior.
  There is undoubtedly a hidden signifier here which, of course, can nowhere
  be incarnated absolutely, but which is nevertheless the closest to being incarnated
  in the existence of the word man and the word woman.
  
  假如我跟你们谈论关于白日与夜晚，那是要让你们感觉，白日，白日的这个观念，白日的这个字词，白日来临的这个观念，适当而言是在任何现实界是某件无法被理解的东西。在日与夜的对立面是能指意义的对立。这种对立无限地超越所有的意义，它最后可能跨越，确实地跨越过每一种的意义。假如我将白日与夜晚作为例子，那当然是因为我们的主体是男人与女人。男人这个能指与女人这个能指，绝非是被动的态度与主动的态度，侵犯的态度与屈服的态度。他们绝非是行为的形式。无可置疑地，在此有一个隐藏的能指，当然，它根本就没有办法被具体呈现。可是，最靠近具体呈现的就是男人这个字词与女人这个字词的存在。
  
  224
  If these registers of being are anywhere, in the final analysis it's in words.
  It isn't obligatory that they be verbalized words. It may be a sign on a wall,
  it may be, for the so-called primitive, a painting or a stone, but it's elsewhere
  than in types of conduct or patterns.1
  
  假如生命实存的这些铭记存在，追根究底，那就是存在于文字里。但是未必尽然都是文辞表达的文字。它可能是墙壁上的一个符号讯息。对于所谓的原始人，它可能是一幅图画，或一块石头。但是它并非是某种的行为或模式。
  
  This is not new. When we say that the Oedipus complex is essential for
  the human being to be able to accede to a humanized structure of the real, it
  can't mean anything else.
  
  这并不新奇。当我们说，伊底浦斯情结是重要的，为了让人类能够接纳人性化的实在界的结构。它无法意味着任何其他东西。
  
  Everything that abounds in our literature, the fundamental principles on
  which we agree, imply it - in order for there to be reality, adequate access to
  reality, in order for the sense of reality to be a reliable guide, in order for
  reality not to be what it is in psychosis, the Oedipus complex has to have
  been lived through. Now, we are only able to express this complex, its triangular
  crystallization, its various modalities and consequences, its terminal
  crisis, called a decline,2 which is ratified by the subject's entry into a new
  dimension, insofar as the subject is at once himself and the other two partners.
  This is what is meant by the term identification that you are always
  using. Thus here we have intersubjectivity and dialectical organization. This
  would be unthinkable if the field we have localized under the name of the
  Oedipus complex didn't have a symbolic structure.
  
  在我们的文献里充斥的每样东西，我们认同的那些基本原理，都暗示着，为了让现实界存在，为了进入现实界，为了让现实界的意义作为可靠的引导，为了让现实界不要成为是在精神病的现实界，伊狄浦斯情结必须要被经历过。现在，我们仅是能够表达这个情结，它的三角形的晶体化，它的各色各样的模式与结果，它的终端的危机，所谓的衰亡，由于主体进入新的维度而被认可。因为主体既是他自己，又是其他的两个伴侣。这就是你们总是在使用的「认同」这个术语。因此，在此我们拥有互为主体性与辩证法的组织。假如我们以伊狄浦斯情结的名义定位的这个领域没有象征的结构，这将是不可思议的。
  
  I don't believe that this analysis can be questioned. The fact that it isn't
  generally accepted alters nothing. It's enough that certain people take it to
  be certain for it to be raised, by this very fact alone, as an issue. Equilibrium,
  the right situation for the human subject in reality, depends, at one of its
  levels at the very least, on a purely symbolic experience, on an experience
  that implies the conquest of the symbolic relation as such.
  
  我并不相信，这个分析能够被质疑。它通常并没有被接受的这个事实，并没有改变任何东西。某些人们为了让它被提出，作为具有争议，将它视为是天经地义，将这个事实，这就足够了。平衡状态，为了让人类的主体在现实界的合适情况，至少在其中的一个层次上，依靠著纯粹的象征的经验，依靠的经验暗示着，要征服象征的关系的自身。
  
  On reflection, do we need psychoanalysis to tell us this? Aren't we astounded
  that philosophers didn't emphasize ages ago that human reality is irreducibly
  structured as signifying?
  
  反思起来，我们难道需要精神分析来告诉我们这个吗？我们难道不觉的惊奇吗？哲学家在老早之前难道不就是强调：人类的现实界并无法还原成为能指意义的结构？
  
  Day and night, man and woman, peace and war - 1 could enumerate more
  oppositions that don't emerge out of the real world but give it its framework,
  its axes, its structure, that organize it, that bring it about that there is in
  effect a reality for man, and that he can find his bearings therein. The notion
  of reality that we bring to bear in analysis presupposes this web, this mesh of
  signifiers. This isn't new. It's constantly being implied in analytic discourse,
  but is never isolated as such. This isn't necessarily a drawback, but it is one
  in, for example, what has been written on the psychoses.
  
  白天与夜晚，男人与女人，和平与战争—我能够列举更多的对立。它们并非是从真实的世界出现，而是给予真实的世界它的架构，它的轴纽，它的结构。它们组织真实的世界，产生真实的世界，这要对人类而言，才造成一种现实界。这样，人才能在这个现实界里找到他的关联。我们在精神分析让它产生的现实界的观念，预先假设这个网络，能指的这个网罟。这并是什么新奇。在精神分析的辞说里，它不断地被暗杀。但是它从来没有如实地被孤立出来。这未必就是一个缺点，但是在研究精神病时曾经被书写的东西而言，它是个缺点，譬如而言。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-08 11:42:17

  精神病 226
  
  Isn't it on the contrary clear that these mythologies are aimed at installing
  man, at placing him upright, in the world - and that they tell him what the
  primordial signifiers are, how to conceive their relationships and their genealogy?
  
  相反地，这难道不是显而易见的吗？我的这些神话目标是要让人有所安置，让人在世界上顶天立地。他们告诉他，原初的能指是什么，如何构想他们的关系及他们的系谱。
  
  There is no need here to inquire into Greek or Egyptian mythology,
  since M. Griaule came and explained African mythology to you.3 This was
  about a placenta that had been cut into four, and one of the pieces, ripped
  out before the others, introduced into the four primitive elements the initial
  dissymmetry and the dialectic by which are explained not only the division
  of the fields but also the manner in which clothing is worn, what it is that
  clothing, weaving, such and such an art, etc., signify. This is the genealogy
  of signifiers insofar as it's essential if a human being is to find his bearings in
  them. They aren't just signposts, or external, stereotyped moulds, layered
  over forms of behavior, nor are they just patterns.4 It makes possible for him
  free circulation in a world that henceforth has order in it. Modern man is
  perhaps less well off.
  
  在此没有需要探究希腊或埃及的神话，因为格瑞奥勒前来跟你们解释非洲的神话。这是关于于个曾经被切割成为四个的胎盘。支离的胎盘，在其他的胎盘面前被撕裂，被介成为原初的元素。凭这些原初元素的不均称及辩证法，不但领域的区分被解释，而是衣服被穿的方式，布料，编织，等等的技艺的意涵是什么，也能够被解释。这就是能指的系谱学，因为它至关紧要，假如人类想要找到他在其中的关系。它们并不仅仅是路标，或是外资的典型的模式，各式各样行为的层级，它们也不仅是各种模式。这让他有可能在因此有了秩序的世界里自由流通，虽然现代人或许比较没有那么自在。
  
  It's through these myths that the primitive finds his bearings in the order
  of meaningfulnesses. He possesses keys for all sorts of extraordinary situations.
  Should he be in breach of everything, signifiers still support him, which
  for example will tell him exactly the form of punishment entailed by the
  outburst that produced the disturbances. The rule imposes its fundamental
  rhythm upon him. As for us, we're reduced to very fearfully remaining conformist,
  we are afraid that we'll go a little bit mad as soon as we don't say
  exactly the same thing as everybody else. This is the situation of modern
  man.
  
  就是通过这些神话，原始人们才找到他们在意义的秩序里的关系。他拥有各式各样的特别的情境的解答方法。万一他处于背叛一切的状态，各种能指依旧还支持他。譬如，这将告诉他确实会有涵盖怎样的处罚，当爆发各种的混乱时。会有规则赋加它们的节奏在他身上。至于我们，我们沦落到进剩作为畏惧的从众者。我们害怕，一旦我们说的话语与众不同，我们将会变得有点疯狂。这就是现代人的处境。
  
  Let's flesh out the signifier's presence in the real, insofar as this is possible.
  The emergence of a new signifier, with all the consequences, down to one's
  most personal conduct and thoughts, that this may entail, the appearance of
  a register such as that of a new religion, for example, isn't something that is
  easily manipulated - experience proves it. Meanings shift, common sentiments
  and socially conditioned relations change, but there are also all sorts
  of so-called revelatory phenomena that can appear in a sufficiently disturbing
  mode for the terms we use in the psychoses not to be entirely inappropriate
  for them. The appearance of a new structure in the relations between basic
  signifiers and the creation of a new term in the order of the signifier are
  devastating in character.
  
  让我们详述一下这个能指在实在界的存在，因为这是可能的。新的能指的出现，具有一切都后果，包括他最私人的行为与思想。这可能涵盖，譬如，铭记的出现，诸如新的宗教的出现。经验证明，这并不是某件容易操控的东西。意义会转变，共同的情感与被社会制约的关系会改变。但是也有各种的所谓的启示的现象，会以非常混乱的模式出现，为了让我们在精神病使用的术语，有时还是可以完全地适用于它们。在基本的能指，与能指的秩序的新的术语的创造之间的关系，会有性质是具有毁灭性的新的结构出现。
  
  This is no concern of ours. We don't need to take any interest in the appearance of a signifier, since it's a phenomenon that we never encounter professionally. On the other hand, we do deal with subjects in whom we apparently bring to light something, an irreducible kernel, that occurs at the level of the Oedipal relation. The further question I invite you to ask yourselves
  is this - can't one conceive of considering the consequences of the essential lack of a signifier in these immediately accessible subjects called psychotics?
  
  这并不是我们所关注的事情。我们并不需要对新的能指的出现感到興取，因为在专业方面，我们并没有遭遇这一种现象。在另一方面，我们确实是在处理一些主体，我们显而易见地正带给他某个启示。那是无法还原的核心，发生在伊狄浦斯的关系的层次。更进一步我要求你们询问自己的问题是：我们难道不能够构想考虑能指的基本的欠缺的各种结果，在所谓的精神病的这些马上可以接近的主体身上？
  
  Here again, I'm saying nothing new. I'm simply clearly articulating what
  is implied in our discourse when we speak of the Oedipus complex. A neurosis
  without Oedipus doesn't exist. This question has been raised, but there's
  no truth in it.5 We readily acknowledge that in psychosis something hasn't
  functioned, is essentially incomplete, in the Oedipus complex. A certain analyst
  has had a paranoid-like case to study in vivo, homologous in certain respects
  to the case of President Schreber. He says a number of things that in the end
  come very close to what I've been telling you, except that obviously he gets
  confused because he's unable to formulate things as I'm suggesting they should
  be in saying that psychosis consists of a hole, a lack, at the level of the signifier.
  
  在此再一次，我并没有说出什么新的东西。我仅是清楚地表达我们的辞说所暗示的东西，当我们谈论到伊狄浦斯情结。神经症必然会有伊狄浦斯情结存在。这个问题曾经被提出，但是里面却没有什么真理。我们很快地承认，在精神病，某件东西并没有发挥功能。在伊狄浦斯情结里，它基本上依旧是不完整的。某位精神分析家曾经有过类似偏执狂的个案，作为活体研究。在某些方面，跟许瑞伯庭长的个案类同。他说了许多事情，最后，这些事情靠近我一直告诉你们的东西。除了就是，他显然陷入混乱，因为他不能够说明事情，如同我正在建议应该被说出的方式。精神病由一个空洞组成，在能指的层次。
  
  This may strike you as vague, but it's adequate, even if we can't say
  straightaway what this signifier is. We shall nevertheless figure it out by
  approximation, beginning from the meanings connoted as we approach it.
  May one speak of approaching a hole? Why not? There is nothing more dangerous
  than approaching a void.
  
  你们感觉的印象可能是模糊，但是这是充分的，即使我们无法立即说这个能指是什么。可是，我们将理解它，凭借接近它，从内涵的各种意义开始，当我们接近它时。我们可以谈论接近空洞吗？有何不可呢？接近空洞是最危险不过的事情。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-09 10:21:19

  精神病 227
  
  3
  There is another form of defense that a forbidden tendency or meaning will
  provoke. It's the defense that consists in not approaching the place where
  there is no answer to the question.
  
  被禁止的倾向或意义还会挑起另外一种防卫。这种防卫并非在于接近问题没有解答的地方。
  
  One is more at ease this way and, after all, this is the characteristic of
  normal people. Don't ask us questions, we've been taught, and this is why
  we're here. But as psychoanalysts it's nevertheless our business to try to
  enlighten these poor unfortunates who have asked themselves questions. We're
  certain that neurotics have asked themselves a question. Psychotics, it's not
  so sure. The answer has perhaps come to them before the question - this is
  a hypothesis. Or else, the question has asked itself of its own accord - this
  isn't inconceivable.
  
  我们在这方面更加地自在，这是正常人们的特性。我们曾经被教导：「请不要问我们这个问题。」这就是为什么我们在这里。但是作为精神分析家，这可是我们的职责，要设法启蒙那些可怜的不幸者。他们已经询问自己这个问题。我们确定，神经症曾经询问自己一个问题。这是一个假设。否则，这个问题会自动地询问它自己。这并非是不可想像的。
  
  There is no question for a subject without another to whom he has addressed
  it. Someone was saying to me recently, in analysis - In the final analysis, I
  have got nothing to ask of anyone. It was a sad avowal. I pointed out to him
  that if in any case he had anything to ask he would necessarily have to ask it
  of someone. This is the other side of the same question. If we implant this
  relation firmly in our heads, it won't appear extravagant if I say that it's also
  possible that the question asks itself first, that it's not the subject who has
  asked it. As I've shown you in my case presentations, what happens at the
  beginning of a psychosis is of this order.
  
  对于主体而言，他曾经对它交谈这个问题，必然会产生另外一个问题。最近，在精神分析时，有某个人曾经对我说，「追根究底，我对任何人，都没有什么要求。」这是一个悲哀的宣称。我跟他指出，假如他有任何东西要求，他必然是对某个人要求它。这就是相同问题的另外一边。假如我们在脑袋里坚固地安置这个关系，假如我这样说，并不算是夸大之言。问题也可能首先询问它自己，而不是主体曾经询问问题。如同我曾经在个案的呈现时，告诉过你们，在精神病的开始所发生的事情，就是属于这个秩序。
  
  Recall this little subject who, to us, appeared evidently very lucid. Given
  the way he had grown up and prospered in existence, in the midst of the
  anarchy, which was merely a bit more patent than in other cases, of his family
  situation, he had attached himself to a friend who had become his point of
  implantation in existence, and all of a sudden something happened, he wasn't
  able to explain what. It became very clear to us that this was bound up with
  the appearance of his partner's daughter, and we can add that he experienced
  this fact as incestuous, hence defense.
  
  请你们回忆一下这位小主体。对于我们，他看起来显然非常清楚。假如考虑到他曾经成长及发达的过程，处于无政府状态之中。比起其他个案，他对于他的家庭情况，仅是勉强忍耐。他曾经对于一位朋友发生感情，这位朋友就成为他生存的安置点。突然地，某件事情发生，他不能够解释是什么事情。我们清楚看到的是，这跟他的伴侣的女儿的出现息息相关。我们能够补充说，他经验到这个事实作为是乱伦，因此採取防卫。
  
  精神病228
  
  We haven't been very stringent about the rigor of our remarks ever since
  we learned from Freud that the principle of contradiction doesn't work in
  the unconscious - a suggestive and interesting formulation but, if one doesn't
  go any further than this, a bit brief - when something fails to work in one
  sense it's explained by its contrary. And this is why analysis explains things
  so admirably. This simple little chap had understood a lot less than we had.
  He was knocking against something, and he didn't have any keys, he spent
  three months in bed in order to find his bearings again. He was in a state of
  perplexity.
  
  自从我们从弗洛依德学习到：在无意识里，悖论的原则并没有运行。我们对于我们谈论的严谨并没有非常挑剔。这是一个具有暗示而且有趣的诠释。但是，假如我们没有再进一步深入，因为有点简短—当某件东西没有运作，它的意义就根据它的相反面来解释。这就是为什么精神分析如此令人赞赏地解释事情。这位小人物的理解能力远逊于我们。他一直碰撞到某件东西。他没有任何的钥匙。他躺在床上三个月，为了再次找出他的关系。他处于困惑的状态。
  
  A minimum of the sensitivity that our trade gives us clearly demonstrates
  something that can always be seen in what is known as prepsychosis, namely
  the feeling that the subject has come to the edge of a hole. This is to be taken
  literally. It's not a matter of understanding what is going on when we aren't
  present. It isn't a matter of phenomenology. It's a matter of understanding,
  not imagining, what happens for a subject when the question comes to him
  from where there is no signifier, when it's a hole, a lack, that makes itself felt
  as such.
  
  只有我们稍有的专业的敏感度，就能清楚地证明某件总是能够看出的事情，在众所周知的精神病前期。也就是这个感觉：主体已经来到空洞的边缘。这句话应该实质地被看待。问题并不是要理解当我们不在场时发生什么事情。这并不是现象学的问题。问题是要理解，而不是想象主体发生什么事情，当能指并不存在的地方，当能指是个空洞，是个欠缺时，他面临的这个问题自身被感觉作为是空洞，欠缺。
  
  I repeat, it's not a matter of phenomenology. It's not a matter of playing
  the madman - one does this enough ordinarily, in one's internal dialogue.
  It's a matter of determining what the consequences are of a situation that is
  determined thus.
  
  我重复一遍。这并不是现象学的问题。这并是在自己的内部的对话扮演疯子的问题，虽然通常很多人这样做。问题是要决定，因此而被决定的情境的结果是什么。
  
  Not every stool has four legs. There are some that stand upright on three.
  Here, though, there is no question of their lacking any, otherwise things go
  very badly indeed. WeU then, let me tell you that the significant points of
  purchase that uphold the little world of the solitary little men in the modern crowd are very few in number. It's possible that at the outset the stool doesn't
  have enough legs, but that up to a certain point it will nevertheless stand up,
  when the subject, at a certain crossroads of his biographical history, is confronted
  by this lack that has always existed. To designate it we've made do
  until now with the term Verwerfung.
  
  并不是每张凳子都有四隻脚。有些凳子是三隻脚直立。尽管这样，在此它们并没有任何欠缺的问题，否则情况会很进行得不妙。呵呵，让我告诉你们，在现代的群众里，这位孤独的小人物的渺小的世界，受到支撑的意义的优势的点数量非常少。很有可能，从一开始，这个凳子就没有足够的脚。但是直到某个时刻，它仍然可以直立。当主体在他传记历史的某个十字路口，面临这个总是存在的欠缺。为了指明它，我们直到现在，将究使用「弃绝Verwerfung」这个术语。
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-10 10:38:18

  229
  
  This may lead to more than one conflict, but it isn't essentially a matter of
  conflicting constellations which in neurosis are explained by a significant
  decompensation. In psychosis it's the signifier that is in question, and as the
  signifier is never solitary, as it invariably forms something coherent - this is
  the very meaningf ulness of the signifier - the lack of one signifier necessarily
  brings the subject to the point of calling the set of signifiers into question.
  Here you have the fundamental key to the problems of the beginning of
  psychosis, the sequence of its stages, and its meaning.
  
  这可能导致不仅是一种冲突。但是基本上，问题并不是在于互相冲突的情意丛。在神经症，这些冲突的情意丛是用意义的解离来解释。在精神病，受到质疑的是能指。因为能指从来就是孤单的，因为能指无可避免地会形成某件一贯性的东西。这就是能指的意义。能指的这个欠缺必然会将主体带到质疑能指的集合体的程度。在此，你们拥有基本的解答，对于精神病开始的问题，它一系列的阶段，以及它的意义。
  
  In fact, the terms in which these questions are usually framed imply what
  I'm telling you. A Katan, for example, states that hallucination is a mode of
  defense like any other.6 He's aware, however, that there are phenomena here
  which though very closely related are different - the certainty of meaning
  without content, which may simply be called interpretation, is, effectively,
  different from hallucination properly so-called. He explains the two by mechanisms
  designed to protect the subject according to another mode than the
  one in operation in the neuroses. In the neuroses it's meaning that temporarily
  disappears, is eclipsed, and goes and lodges itself somewhere else, whereas
  reality itself remains. Such defenses are inadequate in the case of psychosis,
  where what is to protect the subject appears in reality. The subject places
  outside what may stir up inside him the instinctual drive that he has to confront.
  It's obvious that the term reality as it's used here is totally inadequate. Why
  not have the courage to say that the mechanism being appealed to is the id -
  since it's considered to have the power to modify and disturb what one may
  call the truth of the thing?
  
  事实上，通常用这些术语来架构的这些问题暗示着我正在告诉你们的东西。譬如，卡坦就陈述：幻觉是防卫的模式，跟任何其他防卫一样。可是，他知道，在此有很多的现象，虽然彼此关系密切，它们并不相同。没有内容的意义的确定性，可以仅被称为是诠释。这种确定性事实上跟恰当所谓的幻觉不同。他解释这两个，凭借被设计的心理机制来保护主体，依照跟神经症运作的模式不同的模式。在神经症，意义暂时消失，隐蚀，前去驻居这某个其他地方，但是现实界仍然持续著。在精神病的个案，这些防卫是不足够的。在精神病，用来保护主体的东西在现实界出现。主体将他必须面对的本能的冲动，摆置在可能在他内部引起骚乱的东西的外面。显而易见地，在此所使用的「现实界」这个术语，完全不充足。为什么我们不鼓起勇气来说，正在被诉求的心理机制是「本我 id」。因为它被认为拥有这个力量来修改与扰乱我们所谓的无意识物象的真理。
  
  According to this explanation it's a matter of the subject's protecting himself
  against homosexual temptations. Nobody has ever gone on to say - Schreber
  less so than anyone else - that all of a sudden he could no longer see people,
  that the very face of his male counterparts was, by the hand of eternal God,
  covered with a cloak. He could always see them perfectly well. One simply
  believes that he couldn't see them for what they really were for him, namely
  attractive love objects. At issue is, therefore, not what one vaguely calls real-
  ity, as if this were the same thing as the reality of a wall we might bump into,
  but a meaningful reality, which doesn't present us simply with footholds and
  obstacles, but a truth that verifies itself and installs itself by itself as orienting
  this world and introducing beings, to call them by their name, into it.
  Why not admit, then, that the id is capable of conjuring away the truth of
  the thing?
  
  依照这个解释，问题是主体保护他自己对抗同性恋的诱惑。许瑞伯比起任何其人，比较不是这样。 从来没有人曾经继续说：突然地，他不再看见人们，凭借上帝的手，他的男性对应人物的脸孔用外套盖住。他总是能够非常清楚地看见他们。我们仅是相信，他无法看见这些脸孔，依照它们被呈现个他的样子。也就是说，作为迷惑的爱的客体。因此，受到争议的并不是我们模糊所谓的现实界，好像这是跟我们可能碰撞的墙壁的现实界是相同的东西。而是具有意义的现实界。这种意义的现实界不仅供应给我们垫脚处与阻碍，而且供应给我们一种可验证自己的真理，可安置自己作为是定向这个世界，并将各种生命介绍进入世界，我们不妨就称他们是各种生命。那么，为什么我们不承认：这个「本我id 」能够召唤起无意识无象的真理？
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复
• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2014-02-11 11:26:01

  精神病 230
  But we can also raise the question from the opposite direction, namely,
  What happens when the truth of the thing is lacking, when there is nothing left to
  represent it in its truth, when for example the register of the father defaults?
  The father is not simply the generator. He's also the one who has rightful
  possession of the mother - and in peace, in principle. His function is central
  to the realization of the Oedipus complex and conditions the son's accession
  - which is also a function, correlative to the first - to the model of virility.
  
  但是我们也从相反的立场提出这个问题。那就是：「当无意识物象的真理是欠缺时，当没有一样东西留下来代表它的真理时，譬如，父亲破产时，会发生什么事情？」父亲不仅是产生者。他也是平静时期，原则上合法拥有母亲的人。父亲的功能对于伊狄浦斯情结的实践，至关紧要，并且制约儿子的进入的权力。这也是生命力的模式的一种功能，相对于第一功能而言。
  
  What happens if a certain lack occurs in the formative function of the father?
  The father may well have had a certain mode of relation such that the son
  does indeed adopt a feminine position, but it's not through fear of castration.
  We are all familiar with cases of these delinquent or psychotic sons who proliferate
  in the shadow of a paternal personality of exceptional character, one
  of these social monsters referred to as venerable. They are often characters
  strongly marked by a style of radiance and success, but in a unilateral manner,
  in the register of unbridled ambition or authoritarianism, sometimes of
  talent, of genius. They don't necessarily have to be a genius, have merit, or
  be mediocre or nasty, it's sufficient that this be unilateral and monstrous. It's
  certainly not by chance that a psychopathic personality subversion, in particular,
  is produced in such a situation.
  
  万一某种的欠缺发生在父亲的形成的功能时，会发生怎样的情况？父亲很有理由曾经拥有某种的关系的模式，以致于儿子确实採用女性的立场。但是并不是通过对阉割的恐惧的方式。我们大家对于这些偏差行为与精神病的儿子的个案都耳熟能详。他们在特殊性格的父亲的人格的隐影里繁殖。这些被认为是令人尊敬的社会怪物的人格。他们的性格往往标示着灿烂与成功的风格。但是以单边的方式，具有难以驾驭的企图心与权威感，有时，天才洋溢，智慧超人。他们未尽必然都是天才，拥有优点，或是平庸，或是令人厌恶。他们光是单边发展及怪诞，就绰绰有余了。这确实并不是偶然的，在这样的情境，会特别产生精神病的人格的倒错。
  
  Let's suppose that this situation entails for the subject the impossibility of
  assuming the realization of the signifier father at the symbolic level. What's
  he left with? He's left with the image the paternal function is reduced to. It's
  an image which isn't inscribed in any triangular dialectic, but whose function
  as model, as specular alienation, nevertheless gives the subject a fastening
  point and enables him to apprehend himself on the imaginary plane.
  
  让我们假设，对于主体而言，这种情境涵盖这种不可能性：他不可能在象征的层次，担负起父亲能指的实践。那他还剩下些什么呢？他剩下的就是父亲的功能被还原的形象。这样的形象并没有被铭记在任何三角形的辩证法里。但是它作为楷模的功能，作为魅影异化的功能，仍然给予主体一个紧缩点，并且让主体在想象的层面理解他自己。
  
  If the captivating image is without limits, if the character in question manifests
  himself simply in the order of strength and not in that of the pact, then
  a relation of rivalry, aggressiveness, fear, etc. appear. Insofar as the relationship
  remains on the imaginary, dual, and unlimited plane, it doesn't possess
  the meaning of reciprocal exclusion that is included in specular confrontation,
  but possesses instead the other function, that of imaginary capture. The
  image, on its own, initially adopts the sexualized function, without any need
  of an intermediary, an identification with the mother, or with anything else.
  
  这个令人著迷的形象没有极限，假如受到质疑的这个人物展示他自己，仅是在力量的秩序，而不是在盟约的秩序，那么，敌意，侵凌，恐惧等关系就会出现。因为这种关系始终是在想象界，双重，而且没有极限的层面，它并没有拥有互相排除的意义。这种互相排除被包括在魅影的面对，但是代替的，它拥有另外一个功能，想像的捕捉的功能。这个形象的自身最初採取性化的功能，没有任何以认同母亲或任何其他东西作为中介的需要。
  
  The subject then adopts this intimidated position that we can observe in the
  fish or lizard. The imaginary relation alone is installed on a plane that has
  nothing typical about it and is dehumanizing because it doesn't leave any
  place for the relation of reciprocal exclusion that enables the ego's image to
  be founded on the orbit given by the model of the more complete other.
  
  主体因此採用这个畏惧的立场。我们在鱼与蜥蜴身上观察到的立场。仅有这个想象的关系被安置在没有任何典型的东西的层面，并且丧失人性，因为它没有留下任何地方给互相排除的关系。互相排除的关系让自我的意象能够以这个轨道作为基础。由更加完整的他者的模式给予的轨道。
  
  The alienation here is radical, it isn't bound to a nihilating signified, as in
  a certain type of rivalrous relation with the father, but to a nihilation of the
  signifier. The subject will have to bear the weight of this real, primitive dispossession
  of the signifier and adopt compensation for it, at length, over the
  course of his life, through a series of purely conformist identifications with
  characters who will give him the feeling for what one has to do to be a man.
  
  这种异化是激烈的。它的关连并不是虚无化的所指，如同在跟父亲的具有敌意的关系，而是跟能指的虚无化。主体将必须承受这个真实的原始的能指的丧失拥有的重量，然后採取对于这种丧失的补偿。在他生命的历程，通过一连串的纯粹是妥协主义的认同一些人物。这些人物将会给他这种感觉，为了成为一个人，他必须做到的行为。
  
  The situation may be sustained for a long time this way, psychotics can
  live compensated lives with apparently ordinary behavior considered to be
  normally virile, and then all of a sudden, mysteriously, God only knows why,
  become decompensated. What is it that suddenly renders insufficient the
  imaginary crutches which have enabled the subject to compensate for the
  absence of the signifier? How does the signifier as such again lay down its
  requirements? How does what is missing intervene and question?
  
  这种情境可能会以这种方式维持一段长时间。精神病者能够过著被补偿的生活，行为显而易见是寻常被认为是正常生命力的行为。然后，突然地，神秘地，变成没有受到补偿，仅有上帝知道为什么。是什么突然让这些想象的支撑丧失足够力量呢？这些想象的支撑曾经让主体补偿能指的缺陷。这个能指的自身如何再次奠定它的要求呢？所失落的东西如何介入与质疑呢？
  
  Before trying to resolve these problems, I would like you to notice how the
  appearance of the question raised by a lack of a signifier manifests itself. It
  manifests itself through fringe phenomena in which the set of signifiers is
  brought into play. A great disturbance of the internal discourse, in the phenomenological
  sense of the term, comes about and the masked Other that is
  always in us appears lit up all of a sudden, revealing itself in its own function,
  for this function is the only one that henceforth maintains the subject at the
  level of discourse which threatens to fail him entirely and disappear. Such is
  the sense of the twilight of reality that characterizes the beginning of psychoses.
  We shall try to advance a bit further next time.
  18 April 1956.
  
  在我尝试解决这个问题之前，我想要你们注意到，由能指点欠缺提出的这个问题的出现，是如何展示它自己。这个问题展示它自己，凭借那些边缘的现象，在这些现象里，各种能指的集合运作著。就这个术语的现象学的意义而言，内部辞说的强烈扰乱会发生，然后，总是在我们身上的伪装的大他者似乎突然地被照亮起来，以他自己的功能显示他自己。因为这个功能是唯一的功能，在辞说的层次维持主体的功能。这个辞说威胁要让主体完全失败并且消失。这就是现实界的暮光的意义，这种现实界作为精神病的开始的特性。下一次，我们将稍微更加深入地探究这个问题。
  
  雄伯译
  32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
  http://springhero.wordpress.com
  

  删除 |

  赞 回复

你的回复