Lacan 403

The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious 佛洛伊德的無意識:主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證
For let us look again from this angle at the service we expected from Hegel’s phenomenology, for it represents an ideal solution—a solution, one might say, involving a permanent revisionism, in which truth is in a state of constant reabsorption in its own disturbing element, being in itself no more than that which is lacking for the realization of knowledge. 讓我們再一次從這個角度,來看我們期望黑格爾的現象學能夠提供給我們怎樣 的服務,因為我們不妨說,黑格爾的現象學代表一個理想的解決,牽涉到一個 永久的修正主義。在那裡,真理處於動盪不安的正反合,不斷重整的狀態。真理 本身僅僅是實踐知識時所欠缺的嚮往 The antinomy that the Scholastic tradition posed as a matter of principle is here taken to be resolved by virtue of being imaginary. Truth is nothing other than that which knowledge can apprehend as knowledge only by setting its ignorance work. A real crisis in which the imaginary is resolved, thus engendering a new symbolic form, to use my own categories. 學術界傳統所形成的二律悖反的矛盾原則,在此只有憑藉想像界,才有辦法解 決。真理僅僅就是欠缺自知之明的情況下,知識所能理解自明的部份。這種辯證 其實萬分驚險,因為以這種驚險的方式,二律悖反的問題在想像界得到解決, 但是卻因此產生一個新的象徵符號的形式,用我自己的分類來說。 This dialectic is convergent and attains the conjuncture defined as absolute knowledge. As such it is deduced, it can only be the conjunction of the symbolic with a real of which there is nothing more to be expected. What is this real, if not a subject fulfilled in his identity to himself? From which, one can conclude that this subject is already perfect in this regard, and is the fundamental hypothesis of this whole process. He is named, in effect, as being the substratum of this process; he is called the Selbstbewustsien, the being conscious of self, the fully conscious self. 這種辯證法日積月累,有朝一日,終於達到被定義為絕對知識。 真理要體現成為 一種絕對知識,只有當象徵符號界與真實界完全彌合,中間不再有任何罅隙存
1

在,才有可能。 真實界是什麼?難道不就是主體體現在對自己的認同?從那裡, 我們可以蓋棺論定說,主體在這方面的完美無缺,以及主體在這整個過程,居 於基本的假設位置。事實上,他居於這個過程的基礎地位。他被稱為意識到自我 的存在,具有充份意識的自我。 I would to heaven it were so, but the history of science itself—I mean our science, from its inception, say, in Greek mathematics—presents itself rather in the form of detours that comply very little with this immanentism. In fact, the theories—and let us not be misled by any re-absorption of the limited theory into the generalized theory— do not, in any way, fit together according to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis dialectic. 我向上天祈禱,但願是如此,但是科學歷史的本身,從一開始,譬如希臘數學 開始,呈現的形式就迂迴曲折,不見得與這個內在真理相符合。 我們不要讓黑格 爾有限範圍的理論,重新整合成為四海皆準的理論所誤導。 事實上,理論並沒有 依照正反合的辯證法,匯聚起來。 Indeed, a number of cracks to be heard confusedly in the great consciousnesses responsible for some of the outstanding changes in physics remind us that, after all, for this knowledge as for others it is elsewhere that the hour of truth must strike. 的確,物理學的一些重大變化提醒我們,畢竟,不論這個知識,或其它知識, 真理體現的時刻,往往是在它方。 許多這些懷疑的混亂雜音,在孜孜從事追求真 理的偉大學者的意識心靈,不時可被聽見。 And why would not see that the astonishing consideration shown to the din emerging from psychoanalysis in science may be due to the theoretical hope psychoanalysis offers—a hope that is not only the result of confusion? 那麼我們為什麼看不出,從精神分析學在科學界所傳出的喧嘩顯現出,那些令 人驚奇的奇異想法,可能是因為精神分析學所提供的理論產生了希望。 這個希望 難道不是由於混亂雜音的結果? Of course, I am not referring to that extraordinary lateral transference, by which the categories of a psychology that re-invigorates its menial tasks with social exploitation acquire a new strength in psychoanalysis. For the reason already given, I regard the fate of psychology as signed and sealed. 當然,我並不是提到那個特別的一廂情願的效勞。 有一種心理學學派,以替社會
2

的剝削,重新從事效勞的能事,在精神分析領域得到新興的力量。 為了以上我所 提出的理由,我認為這種心理學遲早會遭遇自取滅亡的命運。 In any case, my double reference to Hegel’s absolute subject and to the abolished subject of science provides the illumination necessary to an accurate formulation of Freud’s dramatism: the re-entry of truth into the field of science at the same time as it gains recognition in the field of its praxis : repressed, it reappears. 無論如何,我同時提到黑格爾的絕對主體及科學的被廢棄主體,可供正確地說 明佛洛伊德學說所需的啟明:當真理在其實踐的領域,得到承認的同時,它也 重新進入科學的領域:真理受到壓抑,但會重新出現 Who cannot see the distance that separate the unhappy consciousness –of which, however strongly it is engraved in Hegel, it can be said that that it is still no more than the suspension of a corpus of knowledge—from the ‘ discontents of civilization’ in Freud, even if it is only in a mere phrase, uttered as if disavowed, that marks for us what, on reading it, cannot be articulated otherwise than the ‘skew relation’ that separates the subject from sexuality? 不愉快的意識與 「文明的不滿」 ,有點差距,這是任何人都可以看得出來。 前者強 烈地銘記在黑格爾的著作中,指的僅僅是某種知識的主體未能滿足,後者是佛 洛伊德所說,雖然僅是三言兩語,表達得好像忿忿不平,當我們閱讀時,我們 感受到的,道道地地就是主體求歡不遂的「別扭關係」。 There is nothing, then, in our expedient for situating Freud that owes anything to the judicial astrology in which the psychologist dabbles. Nothing that proceeds from quality, or even from the intensive, or from any phenomenology from which idealism may draw reassurance. In the Freudian field, in spite of the words themselves, consciousness is a feature as inadequate to ground the unconscious in its negation ( that unconscious dates from St Thomas Aquinas) as the affect is unsuited to play the role of the protopathic subject, since it is a service that has no holder. 雖然我們為了方便對佛洛伊德蓋棺論定,但是對於他作為心理學家所涉獵的算 命占星術,我們絲毫不敢茍同。對於他的理想主義可以賴於安身立命的才華、勤 奮、或現象學研究,我們也不認為有何進展。在佛洛伊德領域,望文生義,無意 識是意識的否定,意識就是一個不足以作為無意識的基礎的特徵,(那種無意 識起源於聖湯姆士、阿奎那)。 意識的情意不適合於扮演主體百感交集的角色, 因為它在那裡找不到支撐。
3

In this formula, which is mine only in the sense that it conforms as closely to Freud’s text as to the experience that it opened up, the crucial term is the signifier, brought back to life from the ancient art of rhetoric by modern linguistics, in a doctrine whose various stages cannot be traced here, but of which the names of Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Jakobson will stand for the dawn and its present-day culmination, not forgetting that the pilot science of structuralism in the West has its roots in Russia, where formalism first flourished. 我獨創一個公式,在意義上,盡可能靠近佛洛伊德的著作所開展的精神分析經 驗。 在這個公式,重要的術語是意符,現代的語言學將它從古代的修辭學,重新恢 復生機。這個學說發展的過程,我無法在此詳述,但是鼎鼎大名的佛地南、索緒 爾及羅門、傑克遜將可以代表它的開端,及今日的興盛。但是不要忘記,西方的 結構主義作為一門領航的科學,起源於蘇俄。 在那裡,文藝及宗教的形式主義最 先煥發異采。 “ Geneva 1910’ and ‘ Petrograd 1920’ suffice to explain why Freud lacked this particular tool. But this defect of history makes all the more instructive the fact the mechanisms described by Freud as those of ‘ the primary process’, in which the unconscious assumes its rule, correspond exactly to the functions that this school believes determines the most radical aspects of the effects of language, namely metaphor and metonymy—in other words, the signifier’s effect of substitution and combination on the respectively synchronic and diachronic dimensions in which they appear in discourse. 1910 年的 「日內瓦論文」 1920 年 及 「彼得格勒論文」 的內容,足以解釋佛洛伊德當 時欠缺語言學的工具。 但是這個欠缺,從歷史來看,反而使佛洛伊德描繪無意圖 結構為 「原初過程」 ,更加具有意義。 在那裡,無意識擔負起運作法則。 「原初過 程」 的結構,確實對應這個精神分析學派所相信的功用,以無意識作為一種語言, 積極運作產生的影響,換言之,隱喻跟轉喻的影響。 說得明白些,就是在真理論 述時,意符的替代及聯合,對於語言的歷時性及共時性產生各別的影響。 雄伯譯 32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

4