You are on page 1of 5

拉岡講座252

Indetermination and determination of the subject.


主體的猶豫與決心
Love, transference, desire•
愛、移情、欲望

2
However, we must move on to what is our main topic, namely, the transference. How can we take up
the thread again? The transference is unthinkable unless one sets out from the subject who is supposed
to know.

可是,我們必須繼續談主要的問題,換言之,移情的問題。我們如何能夠重新開始呢?移情是不
可思議,除非我們從應該知道的主體開始。

You will now have a better idea of what he is supposed to know. He is supposed to know that from
which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it—quite simply, signification. Signification
implies, of course—and that is why I first brought out the dimension of his desire—that he cannot
refuse it.

你們現在更加明白,主體應該知道什麼。簡單地說,他應該知道,沒有一個人能夠逃避人生有無
意義的問題,只要他一開始思索。

This privileged point is the only one by which we can recognize the character of an absolute point with
no knowledge. It is absolute precisely by virtue of being in no way knowledge, but the point of
attachment that links his very desire to the resolution of that which is to be revealed.

這個特有的點是唯一的點,我們能夠藉以認出沒有知識的絕對點的特性。這個點之所以絕對,確
實是因為憑藉它本質並非知識,而是連接他的欲望到渴望顯示的真實的聯結點。

The subject comes into play on the basis of this fundamental support—the subject is supposed to know,
simply by virtue of being a subject of desire. Now what actually happens? What happens is what is
called in its most common appearance the transference effect. This effect is love. It is clear that, like
all love, it can be mapped, as Freud shows, only in the field of narcissism. To love is, essentially, to
wish to be loved.

主體根據「主體應該知道」這個基本的支撐來運作,因為人是一個欲望的主體。但是實際發生的情
形是如何呢?實際發生的是眾所周知的移情效應。這個效應就是愛。顯而易見,像所有的愛一樣

1
移情效應的愛,只能夠在自戀的領域,找出位置,如佛洛伊德所顯示。愛,本質上就是希望被
愛。

What emerges in the transference effect is opposed to revelation. Love intervenes in its function,
revealed here as essential, in its function as deception. Love, no doubt, is a transference effect, but it is
its resistance side. We are linked together in awaiting this transference effect in order to be able to
interpret, and at the same time, we know that it closes the subject off from the effect of our
interpretation. The alienation effect, in which is articulated, in the relation of the subject to the Other,
the effect that we are, is here absolutely manifest.

移情效應所顯現的內涵,跟真理的顯示背道而馳。愛發揮它的功用,在此顯示為本質上是欺騙的
功能。愛,無可置疑的,是一種移情效應,但是處於移情效應抗拒的那一面。我們大家匯集在一
起,等待移情效應,為了要能夠解釋人生的意義。同時,我們知道,愛將主體阻隔,無法得到我
們對於人生意義的解釋。疏離的效應在此彰顯得特別明白,因為它一方面被表達為主體跟大它者
的關係,另一方面,又被表達為自我的存在。

We should point out here, then, something that is always avoided, which Freud articulates, and which is
not an excuse, but the reason of the transference, namely, that nothing can be attained in absentia, in
eftigie. This means that the transference is not, of its nature, the shadow of something that was once
alive. On the contrary, the subject, in so far as he is subjected to the desire of the analyst, desires to
betray him for this subjection, by making the analyst love him, by offering of himself that essential
duplicity that is love. The transference effect is that effect of deception in so far as it is repeated in the
present here and now.

因此,我們在此應該指出某件總是被逃避的東西,佛洛伊德表達過,那不是移情的藉口,而是
移情的理由。換言之,本來無一物,何處惹塵埃?這意味著,本質上,移情並不是事先存在的東
西的陰影。相反的,主體一方面屈服於精神分析師的欲望,另一方面,又渴望藉著這樣的屈服,
來使精神分析師愛上他,提供給他愛的本質上的欺騙,而背叛他。移情效應就是欺騙的效應,因
為它在此時此刻的當下反覆地扮演。

It is repetition of that which passed for such only because it possesses the same form. It is not ectopia.
It is not a shadow of the former deceptions of love. It is isolation in the actuality of its pure functioning
as deception.

移情效應就是這種欺騙的反覆扮演,因為它擁有相同的形式。它並不是器官的錯置,也不是先前
曾遭遇到愛的欺騙的陰影。它在作為欺騙的實際功用中,是孤立無辜的。

That is why we can say that what is there, behind the love known as transference, is the affirmation of

2
the link between the desire of the analyst and the desire of the patient. This is what Freud expressed in
a kind of rapid sleight of hand when he said—after all, it is only the desire of the patient—this should
reassure one's colleagues. It is the patient's desire, yes, but in its meeting with the analyst's desire. I will
not say that I have not yet named the analyst's desire, for how can one name a desire? One
circumscribes a desire. There are many things in history that provide us with tracks and traces here.

那就是為什麼我們能夠說,在眾所周知的移情的愛的背後,有某件東西肯定了精神分析師的欲
望跟病人的欲望之間的聯繫。這就是佛洛伊德含蓄表達說,那只是病人的欲望,這樣才能杜絕同
僚八卦的傳聞。不錯,那是病人的欲望,但是要跟精神分析師的欲望邂逅。大家不要以為我沒有
講出精神分析師的欲望,只是欲望要如何能明白指出?我們只能將欲望畫個界限。歷史上有許多
的軼事供給我們探索的蛛絲馬跡。

Is it not strange, that echo that we found—though, of course, we are not going to stick our noses into
this for long—between the ethic of analysis and the Stoic ethic? What does the Stoic ethic really
amount to other than the recognition of the absolute authority of the desire of the Other, that Thy will
be done! that is taken up again in the Christian register? But will I ever have the time to show you this?

在精神分析師的倫理學,跟斯多葛禁欲學派的倫理學之間,我們發現不少共鳴迴響,我們竟然
沒有再進一步澄清,那不是很奇怪嗎?斯多葛禁欲學派,難道不就是等於是,承認大它者的欲
望的絕對權威:「我要你這樣做!」?基督教的上帝的指令,不也就是如此?但是我還需要花更
多時間說清楚嗎?

We are solicited by a more radical articulation. The problem may be posed of the relation between the
master's desire and the slave. Hegel declares it to be solved —this is not so at all. Since I am ready to
take my leave of you for this year —next time will be my last lecture—may I throw out a few
points that may give you some idea of the direction in which we will travel later.

我們有需要做更詳盡的表達。問題會牽涉到主人的欲望跟奴隸之間的關係。黑格爾宣稱這個問題
已經解答,但事實上根本沒有。因為我今年的演講準備告一段落,這將是我下次演講的主題。我
先拋出幾個要點,讓你們知道觀念的方向,我們可以能遵循前進。

If it is true that the master situates himself only in an original relation to the assumption of death, I
think that it is very difficult to attribute to him an apprehensible relation to desire. I'm speaking of the
master in Hegel, not of the master of antiquity, of which we have one portrait, for example, in that
of Alcibiades, whose relation to desire is visible enough. He asks Socrates for something, without
knowing what it is, but which he calls agalma. Some of you will know the use that I made of this term
some time ago. I will go back to this agalma, this mystery, which, in the mist that clouds Alcibiades'
vision, represents something beyond all good.

3
假如主人確實將自己定位在人終究會死亡這層關系,我想主人跟欲望的關係,就很難自圓其說。
我指的是黑格爾的主人,而不是古代的主人,例如,阿西比底思所表現的主人的形象,他跟欲
望的關係。他跟蘇格拉底要求某件東西,卻不知道那是什麼,只好稱之為「最高的善」。你們有些
人可能知道,我不久以前用過這個術語。我將回頭來談阿西比底思想像中,撲朔迷離的這個「最
高的善」的奧秘,因為它代表了超越各種的善行。

How can one see anything other than a first adumbration of the technique of the mapping of the
transference in the fact that Socrates replies to him, not what he said to him when he was young, Look
to your soul, but something more suited to the florid, hardened man he now is, Look to your desire,
look to your onions. As it happens, it is the height of irony on Plato's part to have embodied these
onions in a man who is so futile and absurd, almost a buffoon. I think I was the first to remark that
the lines Plato puts in his mouth concerning the nature of love are an indication of just such futility,
verging on buffoonery, which makes of Agathon perhaps the least likely object to attract the desire of a
master. Furthermore, the fact that he is called Agathon, that is to say, the name to which Plato gave
the supreme value, adds an extra, perhaps involuntary, but incontestable, note of irony.

我們難道沒有看出,移情成形的初步輪廓?蘇格拉底的回答,不是針對對方年輕時所說的「觀照
你的靈魂,」而是某件更適合對方目前意氣風發的狀況「觀照你的欲望,觀照你的情欲。」無獨有
偶,對於柏拉圖,這真是反諷的極致,他將這位如此情欲乖張的虛榮人物,描繪成小丑樣子。我
想我是第一位這樣說,柏拉圖放置在他口中的有關愛情屬性的幾行,指證他的虛榮程度,幾近
小丑樣子,「詩聖阿甘松」是最不可能解釋成為吸引主人欲望的對象。而且,他被稱為「詩聖阿甘
松」,換言之,柏拉圖給予崇高的價值的名稱,讓人不由自主地感受到所彰顯的額外諷刺。

Thus, as soon as it comes into play in the story, the desire of the master seems, of its very nature, to be
the most inappropriate term. On the other hand, when Socrates wishes to obtain his own answer, it is to
the slave, who has no right to declare his own desire, that he turns. He can always be sure of obtaining
the right reply from him. The voice of reason is low, Freud says somewhere, but it always says the
same thing. I don't wish to draw a false parallel to the effect that Freud says exactly the same thing
about unconscious desire. Its voice, too, is low, but its insistence is indestructible. Perhaps there is a
relation between the two. It is in the direction of some kind of kinship that we should turn our eyes to
the slave, when it is a question of mapping what the analyst's desire is.

因此,牽涉到故事的發展,主人的欲望就本身的屬性而言,似乎是最不恰當的術語。在另一方面
蘇格拉底希望獲得他自己的解答時,他求助於奴隸,而奴隸卻是沒有權利宣稱他自己的欲望。蘇
格拉底總是確定能從奴隸身上獲得正確回答。
「理性的聲音是微弱的,」佛洛伊德在某個地方提到
他,「但是總是說同一件事。」我不希望將佛洛伊德對於無意識的欲望,反覆陳說,跟蘇格拉底的
總是說同一件事,妄加附會。他的聲音也是微弱,但是聲音的堅持卻是不可抹滅。可能,兩者之

4
間,還是有些類似可循。我們應該將我們的眼光轉向奴隸,尋求彼此的某種親密關係,因為這牽
涉到精神分析師欲望是什麼的問題。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw