You are on page 1of 6

拉崗講座 2

Psychoses002 Introduction to the question of the psychoses

One is led to think then that psychogenesis is to be identified wit the


reintroduction of this celebrated relation into a relationship with the
object of psychiatry. This is in fact very difficult to conceive, because
it’s literally inconceivable but, like all things that are not well
grasped, or captured in a real concept, it remains a latent
assumption, one that has been latent throughout all the changes in
the complexion of psychiatry over the last thirty years. Well, if that
is what psychogenesis is, I say—because I think that most of you are
by now capable of grasping it, after two years of teaching on the
symbolic, the imaginary and the real, and I also say it for those who
aren’t yet up to it—that the great secret of psychoanalysis is that
there is no psychogenesis. If that is what psychogenesis is, there
precisely nothing that could be further from psychoanalysis in its
whole development, its entire inspiration and its mainspring, in
everything it has contributed, everything it has been able to confirm
for us in anything we have established.

我們忍不住認為,心 因性等於是在介紹跟精神分析的著名關係。這個事實上難
於想像,因為它實際上無法想像,就像在觀念上沒有很清楚瞭解或掌握的東西,
它仍然是潛在的假設。過去 三十年來,在精神分析的發展過程中,它始終只是
潛在。假如那就是心因性,那麼大家只經過兩年對象徵、想像、真實等教學的熟悉,
就可以瞭解了。但我要說的: 精神分析的秘密就在於它並非心因性。假如它就是
心因性,那麼精神分析整個發展,啟示,和主流決不是我們目前所貢獻,所建
立的樣子。

Another way of expressing things, one that goes much further, is to


say that the psychological is, if we try to grasp it as firmly as
possible, the ethological, that is, the whole of biological individual’s
behavior in relation to his natural environment. There you have a
legitimate definition of psychology. There you have an order of real
relations, an objectifiable thing, a field with quite adequately
defined boundaries. But to constitute an object of science, one must
go a little bit further. It has to be said of human psychology what
Voltaire used to say about natural history, which was that it’s not as
natural a all that and that, frankly, nothing could be more anti-
natural. Everything that in human behavior belongs to the
psychological order is subject to such profound anomalies and
constantly presents such obvious paradoxes that the problem arises
of knowing what needs to be introduced in order for a cat to find its
kitten.

另外一種說法是認 為,心理跟人類學有關,也就是生物的個人行為跟他自然環
境的關係。那裡你可找到心理學的合理定義。那裡真正關係有秩序可循,界限明
確,可具體表現。不過要 成為科學客體,我們尚須進一步探討。可以說人類心理
學就像伏爾泰所說的自然歷史。坦白說,自然歷史其實並沒有那麼自然,甚至於
還是違反自然。屬於心理層次 的人類行為每件都相當異常,不斷地呈現明顯的
矛盾,以致於甚至產生這樣的問題:母貓要找小貓,應該要怎麼處理?

If one forgets the landscape, the essential mainspring, of


psychoanalysis, one comes back—which is naturally the constant,
daily-observed tendency of psychoanalysts—to all sorts of myths
formed ages ago. How long ago remains to be defined, but they
date more or less from the end of the eighteenth century. The myth
of unity of the personality, the myth of synthesis, of superior and
inferior functions, confusion about automatism, all these types of
organization of the objective field constantly reveal cracks, tears
and rents, negation of the facts, and misrecognition of the most
immediate experience.

假如精神分析目前的主流情況是如此,我們不妨回溯到幾十年前的神話。從十八
世紀末開始,人格一致性的神話,綜合人格神話,優越感,自卑感,自動運作
的混淆等各種客觀化的組織不斷的暴露出罅隙,破綻,違背事實,以及錯認人
類當下的經驗。

Make no mistake, though. I’m not going to fall into the myth of
immediate experience that forms the bais of what people call
existential psychology or even existential psychoanalysis.
Immediate experience is no better placed to arrest r captivate us
than in any other science. In no way is it the measure of the
development that we must ultimately reach. Freud’s teaching, which
in this respect is in total agreement with what takes place in the rest
of the scientific domain—however differently we have to conceive it
from our own myth—brings resources into play that are beyond
immediate experience and cannot be grasped in any tangible
fashion. In [sucjpanalysis, as in physics, it’s not the property of color
as sensed and differentiated by direct experience that holds our
attention. It’s something which is behind this, and which conditions
it.

但請不誤解我。我不是要掉入當下經驗的神話,一般人都把它當著存在心理學或
存在精神分析學的基礎。當下經驗跟其他科學一樣, 不見得更能吸引我們。他完
全不是我們最後終需達到的標準測量。佛洛伊德的學說在這方面完全跟其他科學
領域一致。它所研究的資源是超越當下的經驗,無法以任何具體的方式來掌握。
精神分析學跟物理學一樣, 吸引我們注意的,不是直接經驗所感受分辨的顏色
屬性,而是背後制約它的東西。

Freudian experience is in no way preconceptional. It’s not a pure


experience, but one that is well and truly structured by something
artificial, the analytic relation, as it’s constituted by what the subject
recounts to the doctor and by what the doctor does with it. It’s by
setting out this initial mode of operatio that everything gets worked
out.

佛洛伊德的經驗不是先觀念而存在,也不是純粹的經驗,而是由人為的分析關
係所精密建構起來的經驗。這個關係就是主體向醫生述說, 醫生予於處理。由這
個最初的運作模式開始,每件事獲得解決。

Throughout this reminder you must have already recognized the


tree orders that I’m forever harping on as so necessary to
understanding anything at all about analytic experience—that is, the
symbolic, the imaginary, and the real.
經此提醒,我想你們一定已經體會到,為了瞭解分析經驗,有三個層面我一再
詳述的,那就是:象徵, 想像和真實。

You saw the symbolic appear just now when I alluded, and from two
different directions, to what is beyond all understanding, which all
understanding is inserted into, and which exercises such as
obviously disruptive influence over human and interhuman
relationships.

當我提到超越瞭解的東西時, 你們看到我使用象徵, 以及其他兩個不同的引


申。這樣我們才有辦法進入理解,並且對人類或人際關係產生顯而易見的斷裂影
響。

You have also seen the imaginary indicated in the reference I made
to animal ethology, that is to the captivating or ensnaring forms that
constitute the rails upon which animal behavior is conducted
towards it natural aims. M.Pieron, who for us doesn’t have an odor
of sanctity, called one of his books Sensation, the Guide to Life. It’s
a very pretty title, but I don’t know that he applies himself to
sensation as much as he says, and the book’s contents certainly
don’t confirm this. What is correct in his approach is that the
imaginary is surely the guide to life for the whole animal domain.
While the image equally plays a capital role in our own domain, this
role is completely taken up and caught up within, remolded and
reanimated by, the symbolic order. The image is always more or less
integrated into this order, which, I remind you, is defined in man by
its property of organized structure.

當我剛才提到動物人類學時, 你們也看到我所表現出來的象徵。就是這種迷人
的形式構成鷹架, 讓動物的行為可以立足其上,導向它自然的目的。丕隆先生
有本書名是「感覺 :人生的指引」。書名取得美 但是我不知道他有沒有人如其文,
運用感覺,因為書的內容確實未能證明。但他方法可取 之處是:象徵對於整個
動物領域確實是生活的引導。雖然影像在我們的領域扮演重要的角色,但這個角
色要經過象徵過程重新塑造,賦於新生命,才能展現光彩。我 再次提醒,影像
總是被合併到象徵層次,才能被人類界定意義。
What difference is there between what belongs to the imaginary or
real orders and what belongs to the symbolic order? In the
imaginary or real orders we always have more and less, a three
shold, a margin, continuity. In the symbolic order every element has
value through being opposed to another.

那麼屬於想像和真實的影像,跟屬於象徵的影像有什麼不同?前兩者, 我們總
是多少有個門檻,邊緣,連續性。而在象徵層次,每個因素的價值都是對立存在。

Take an example from the domain that we are beginning to explore.

從我們開始要探討的領域舉個例子。

One of our psychotics tells us how foreign the world is which he


entered some time ago.

有一位精神病患告訴我們,他剛才進來的世界多麼陌生。每一樣東西對他而言都
變成符號 。他不但被偵查,觀察,監視,而且人們跟他談話, 指指點點, 眨眼。
你立刻會注意到,弔詭的是 ,這些都侵入真實,無生命,非人類的領域。讓我
們再看仔細些。假如他遇到街上的一部車,車並非僅僅是自然物體,他會說:車
子當下從他身邊過去一定有某種意義。

讓我們探討這個幻覺的直覺。車子有意義, 但病患往往說不出是什麼意義。車子
是有利的嗎?或是威脅人的?確實車子在那兒是有個理由。從這相同的現象中,
我們可以形成三個不同的觀念。

我們可以從感覺偏差的角度來考慮。不要以為我們距離這種偏差很遙遠。不久之
前,這還是問題被提出的層次,當問到瘋子基本的經驗是什麼。他可能是位色盲,
把紅色看成綠色,或顛倒過來。也許他無法區別顏色。

或者,我們可以考慮 他跟車子的遭遇,就像紅色胸膛的知更鳥,遇到配偶異性,
展露胸膛,以驗明正身。已經有人證明過,知更鳥的羽飾相當於它領土邊界的防
衛。僅僅是遭遇的本身就 會引起對待敵意的行為。在此紅色有想像的功用,就瞭
解的層次而言,可以詮釋為這樣的事實:紅色代表激怒,似乎使它立刻展現敵
意或憤怒的特性。

最後,我們能以象徵層次瞭解紅色汽車。換句話說,就像我們在牌局中,紅色是
跟黑色相對立,如同我們現有語言所常有的。

在此,我們有三種層次互相區別。我們對基本現象所謂的瞭解就是建立在這三個
不同的層次上。