真理的预言与显现

• 

  springhero 大他者 楼主 2015-12-20 09:22:53

  In Seminar VIII Lacan formulated the problem in the following terms:

  在“第八研讨班”，拉康阐述这个难题，用以下的术语：

  [T]he margin of incomprehension is that of desire. It is insofar as this is not recognized that an analysis terminates prematurely and, in a word, is missed. Of course, the pitfall is that when interpreting you give the subject something on which speech is feeding itself …Hence, each time you introduce—and you are probably obliged to do so—the metaphor, you stay in the same lane as that which gives consistency to the symptom. It is unquestionably a simplified symptom, but it is nonetheless a symptom, at least with regard to the desire one is to set free. (Lacan 1991b[1960–61]:246)

  无法理解的边缘就是欲望的边缘。因为这个欲望没有被体认，精神分析会早熟地被终止。总之，精神分析被错过。当然，这个陷阱是，当你解释时，你给予主体某件东西，某件言说餵食给它自己的东西。因此，每次你介绍隐喻—而且你不得不这样做—你保持在相同的巷道，跟给予症状一贯性的相同的巷道。无可置疑地，那是一个被简化的症状，但是，它仍然是一个症状。至少关于我们想要释放的欲望。

  Without explicitly devaluating the metaphorical dimension of an interpretation, Lacan ensuingly dissected the questions of how an interpretation can follow the metonymical axis, and how such a metonymical interpretation may affect the formations of the unconscious. Reviving the idea that analytic interpretations have to be metonymical, i.e. favouring ‘the connection of a signifier to a signifier’, Lacan clarified in Seminar XI that this does not warrant the conclusion that interpretation is ‘open to all meanings’, nor that it ‘is in itself nonsense’ (Lacan 1977b [1964]:250).

  拉康并没有明确地贬抑解释的隐喻的维度。他随后解剖这些问题：解释如何遵循换喻的枢纽？换与的解释如何影响无意识的形成？当拉康重申这个观念：精神分析的解释必须是换喻，譬如，当拉康赞同“一个能指针对另外一个能指的关联”，他在第11研讨班澄清，这并没有保证这个结论：解释开放给一切意义。它也没有保证这个结论：解释的本身是没有意义。

  But if interpretation is not open to all meanings, how can the analyst avoid impressing a new set of meanings onto the analysand? How can he avoid falling into the trap of suggestion again? It took Lacan another five years to fabricate a satisfactory solution to this problem, and his answer uncannily reflected one of his earliest remarks on the nature of interpretations, a small passage in ‘Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis’ in which he had stated that the analyst’s interventions must take an oracular form (Lacan 1977d[1948]:13).

  但是，假如解释没有开放给一切的意义，分析家如何避免将一套新的意义，给予分析者印象？分析家如何避免再次掉入暗示的陷阱？拉康花费另外的五年，他才建构一个令人满意的解决，对于这个难题。他的回答奥秘地反映出其中一个他最早的谈论，针对解释的特性。在“精神分析的侵凌性”的一个小段落，拉康曾经陈述：分析家的介入必须採取预言的方式。

  To justify his portrayal of interpretations as oracles, Lacan referred to conceptions of meaning within the pre-Socratic tradition. More specifically, he resuscitated a fragment from Heraclitus in which the philosopher had described the words of the Delphic oracle as follows: ‘The Lord whose oracle is in Delphi neither speaks out nor conceals, but gives a sign’ (Kirk and Raven 1957:211). Oracular words do not reveal and they do not hide, they simply signify (Lacan 1998a[1972–73]:114; 1975d[1973]:16).

  为了替解释被描述为预言自园其说，拉康提到意义的观念，在前-苏格拉底的传统。 更加明确地，他重新复活赫拉克利图斯的一个片段。在那里，哲学家曾经描述德尔菲神殿的预言的话语如下：「在德尔菲神殿的预言的神，既没明白道出，也没有隐藏，而仅是给予讯息」。预言的话语并没有显露，它们也没有隐藏，它们仅是给予意涵。

  In another context Lacan wrote that interpretations are not modal judgements, propositions assigning a predicate to a subject, but apophantic statements, that is to say declarations pointing in a certain direction (Lacan 1973 [1972]:30).46

  在另外一个文本，拉康书写到，解释并不是模式的判断，指定陈述词给予主体的命题，而是宣告真理的陈述。换句话说，各种宣告指向某个方向。

  To Lacan the peculiar rethorical quality of the oracle showed how knowledge can function on the place of truth, and how the analyst can make use of this in his discourse (Lacan 1991a[1969–70]:39).47 Once again, it is important to note here that ‘knowledge operating on the place of truth’, ‘truth as knowledge’ (verite comme savoir) does not mean that the knowledge is true. It means that whatever knowledge a statement carries, this knowledge is only half-said (mi-dire) (ibid.: 40). The knowledge appears between the lines, so that whoever receives the message will simultaneously know and not know. Although the receiver observes that there is some knowledge in the message, it does not make her any wiser.

  对于拉康，预言的这个特殊的修饰的特质显示，知识如何能够发挥功能，以真理的位置。以及，分析家如何能够利用这个功能，在他的辞说里。再次，在此，重要的是要注意到“以真理的位置运作的知识“，”作为知识的真理“，并没有意味著，这个知识是真实的。它意味着，无论一个陈述带着怎样的知识，这个知识仅是半说。知识出现在字里行间。这样，任何接收到这个讯息的人，将会知道，而又同时不知道。虽然接收讯息的人观察到，在讯息里有某个知识，他对这个知识仍然蒙昧无知。

  删除 |

  赞 回复

你的回复

回复请先 登录 , 或 注册