拉岡講座247

OF THE SUBJECT WHO IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW,

應該知道的主體

OF THE FIRST DYAD, AND OF THE GOOD

善行與惡行的對立
The trust placed in the analyst
對於精神分析師的信任
Science itself•
科學本身
As soon as there is a subject who is supposed to know, there is transference
一但有了一個應該知道的主體，就會有移情的信仰。

The aim of my teaching has been and still is the training of analysts. The training of analysts is a
subject that is well to the forefront of analytic research. Nevertheless—I have already given you
evidence of this—in the analytic literature, its principles are lost sight of.

我教學的目的始終是精神分析師的訓練。精神分析師的訓練是精神分析研究最迫切的課題。可是
我已經跟你們證實過，這個原則在精神分析的領域，卻受到漠視。

It is clear, in the experience of all those who have passed through this training, that in the absence of
adequate criteria, something that is of the order of ceremony is put in their place and—since for the
psycho-analyst there is no beyond, no-substantial beyond, by which to justify his conviction that he is
qualified to exercise his function—the substitution, in this instance, can be interpreted in only one way
—as simulation.

顯而易見，根據所有通過這個訓練的那些人的經驗，由於欠缺充份的標準，只好使用一些儀式
的東西來充當代替。精神分析師沒有超越的神，沒有非實質的神，可以用來證實，他確信擁有資
格來發揮他的功能。在此情況下，儀式的代替，只能用一種方式來解釋，那就是模擬。

Yet what he obtains is of incalculable value—the trust of a subject as such, and the results that this
involves by virtue of a certain technique. Now, he does not present himself as a god, he is not God for
his patient. So what does this trust signify? Around what does it turn?

可是，他所獲得的是無與倫比的價值，那就是主體對他的信任，以及憑藉諮商技巧所獲得的結
果。現在，問題是，他再怎樣表現，都不會是神。他無法成為解救他的病人的神。因此，這樣的信
任意味什麼？信任的憑藉是什麼？

1
For him who places the trust, and who receives its reward, the question can no doubt be ignored. It
cannot be for the psycho-analyst. The training of the psycho-analyst requires that he should know, in
the process through which he guides his patient, what it is around which the movement turns. He must
know, to him must be transmitted, through actual experience, what it is all about. This pivotal point is
what I designate—in a way, which, I think, will seem to you sufficiently justified, but which, I hope, as
we progress, will appear more and more clear to you, more and more necessary—it is what I designate
under the term the desire of the psycho-analyst.

對於信任他，並且因此獲益的病人，這個問題無可置疑地可以被忽視。但是對於精神分析師，這
個問題不能夠被忽視。精神分析師的訓練要求，在他引導病人的過程中，他應該知道這個引導的
動作意義是什麼？他必須要知道，透過實際的精神分析經驗，所要傳達的意義是什麼。重點就是
我所指明的問題，我想你們在某方面似乎認為它是天經地義。但是我希望，這個問題會隨著我們
的進展，會越來越明朗，越來越迫切，那就是精神分析師的欲望這個術語。

Last time, I showed you the point of application of the Cartesian approach, which, in its origin and in
its end, is directed essentially not towards science, but towards its own certainty. It is at the heart of
something that is not science in the sense in which, since Plato and before him, it has been the object of
the meditation of philosophers, but Science itself.'

上一次，我告訴過你們，關於笛卡爾方法論的運用要點。這個方法論的起源跟目的，基本上並不
是朝向科學，而是朝向它自己的確定性。這個問題的核心，並不是自從柏拉圖以降，哲學家思考
的那種科學的意義，而是科學的本身。

The science in which we are caught up, which forms the context of the action of all of us in the time in
which we are living, and which the psycho-analyst himself cannot escape, because it forms part of his
conditions too, is Science itself.

我們陷溺其中的科學，就是科學的本身。因為它組成我們所有人生存世間的行動內涵，精神分析
師也無法倖免這種陷溺，因為他也是世間人的一個成員。

It is in relation to this second science, Science itself, that we must situate psycho-analysis. We can do
so only by articulating upon the phenomenon of the unconscious the revision that we have made of the
foundation of the Cartesian subject. First, today, I shall say something about the phenomenology of the
transference.

我們必須將精神分析學，定位在這個次級的科學，也就是科學的本身。我們充其量所能做的就是
根據無意識的現象，對於笛卡爾主體的基礎，清楚表達我們的修正看法。可是今天，我將先談移

2
情的現象。

I
The transference is a phenomenon in which subject and psycho-analyst are both included. To divide it
in terms of transference and counter-transference—however bold, however confident what is said on
this theme may be—is never more than a way of avoiding the essence of the matter.

移情是一個主體與精神分析師都被包含在內的現象。分別被稱為移情與反移情，僅是避開事情本
質的方式，不管你對這個主題，多麼侃侃而談，多麼信心滿滿。

The transference is an essential phenomenon, bound up with desire as the nodal phenomenon of the
human being—and it was discovered long before Freud. It was perfectly articulated—I took up a large
part of a year devoted to the transference to showing this—with the most extreme rigor, in a text in
which the subject of love is discussed, namely, Plato's Symposium.

移情是一個重要的現象，跟人類作為一位個體產生的欲望息息相關，在佛洛伊德之前，早已經
有人發現。在一篇討論愛的主體的文章，也就是柏拉圖的「嚮宴，」這個主題被發揮得淋漓盡致。
我曾花了將近一年的時間，專注討論它有關移情這個問題。

It is possible that this text was written for the character of Socrates, who, nevertheless, is depicted in it
in a particularly discreet way. The essential, initial moment that is of particular relevance to the
question we must ask ourselves about the action of the analyst, is that in which it is said that Socrates
never claimed to know anything, except on the subject of Eros, that is to say, desire. By this fact alone,
and because, in the Symposium, he goes further than anywhere else in showing us the signification of
comedy in his dialogues, carrying it even to the point of farce, Plato could not fail to show us, in the
most precise way, the place of the transference.

這篇文章很可能是為了蘇格拉底這個角色而寫。但是對於他的描述，卻是頗為慎重其事。
跟我們必須要問到有關精神分析師的功能問題，有特別關聯的重要地方是，據說蘇格拉底從來
不宣稱說他知道什麼，除了愛神這個主體，換言之，欲望的主體。光憑這個事實，柏拉圖就一定
能夠斬釘截鐵地告訴我們，移情的位置在哪裡，因為在「嚮宴」中，他將他的「對話錄」所表現的
喜劇的意義，比任何地方都更加透徹明白。

As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere— I have abbreviated it for you
today at the top of the blackboard as S.s.S. (sujet suppose savoir) there is transference.

一但應該知道的主體存在於某處，移情就存在。今天我在黑板的上方，用縮寫字母給你們顯示：
S s S （主體預設歡樂）。

3
What does an organization of psycho-analysts mean when it confers certificates of ability, if not that it
indicates to whom one may apply to represent this subject who is supposed to know?

當精神分析師協會頒發一張合格證照時，那意味著什麼？難道不就是指明，獲頒證照的人，代
表他是應該知道的主體？

Now, it is quite certain, as everyone knows, that no psychoanalyst can claim to represent, in however
slight a way, a corpus of absolute knowledge. That is why, in a sense, it can be said that if there is
someone to whom one can apply there can be only one such person. This one was Freud, while he was
alive.

大家知道，沒有一位精神分析師，能夠宣稱他代表某一個絕對知識的體系。不管他代表到什麼程
度，那都是千真萬確的。那就是為什麼，在某方面，我們可以說，假如有某個人應該獲頒這張證
照，那只有一個人有資格。那一位就是佛洛伊德，假如他還在世的話。

The fact that Freud, on the subject of the unconscious, was legitimately the subject that one could
presume to know, sets aside anything that had to do with the analytic relation, when it was initiated, by
his patients, with him.

探討無意識這個主題，佛洛伊德充當能夠知道的主體，是當之無愧。這個事實還暫時不牽涉到他
跟病人之間的精神分析有關的問題。

He was not only the subject who was supposed to know. He did know, and he gave us this knowledge
in terms that may be said to be indestructible, in as much as, since they were first communicated, they
support an interrogation which, up to the present day, has never been exhausted. No progress has been
made, however small, that has not deviated whenever one of the terms around which Freud ordered the
ways that he traced, and the paths of the unconscious, has been neglected. This shows us clearly
enough what the function of the subject who is supposed to know is all about.

他不但是唯一知道的主體。他確實知道，而且還用讓人無可辯駁的方式，讓我們信服這個知識。
自從他首次發表他的發現，迄今，這些發現經得起接連不斷的一再質疑。我們後來的發展，不論
大小，都沒有超越佛洛伊德條分縷析的範圍，也就是無意識的途徑，雖然他原先的發現的功勞
被人淡忘。這足夠清楚地顯示，應該知道的主體，他的功用是什麼？

The function, and by the same token, the consequence, the prestige, I would say, of Freud are on the
horizon of every position of the analyst. They constitute the drama of the social, communal
organization of psycho-analysts.

4
我要說，佛洛伊德的功用，換言之，他成果，他的威望，是精神分析師的立場的範圍。他們形成
精神分析師協會的各色各樣的社會機能的活動。

Who can feel himself fully invested by this subject who is supposed to know? This is not the question.
The question is first, for each subject, where he takes his bearings from when applying to the subject
who is supposed to know. Whenever this function may be, for the subject, embodied in some
individual, whether or not an analyst, the transference, according to the definition I have given you of
it, is established. If things reach the point that this is already, on the part of the patient, determined for
someone nameable, for a figure accessible to him, there will result from this, for whoever assumes
responsibility for him in analysis, a quite special difficulty, concerning the enacting of the transference.

有誰能夠感覺自己完全代表應該知道的主體？這個問題不重要。重要的問題是，對於每個人而言
當他訴諸於應該知道的主體時，他的立場在哪裡？對於每一個主體而言，每當這個功用具體表
現在某個個人身上，無論他是否是一位精神分析師，移情的關係就被建立，依照我所給你們的
定義。假如在病人這一方面，事情發展到完全寄託於某一特定對象，某一位他可以接近的人物，
移情的扮演就會形成困擾重重，對於在精神分析過程，任何替他擔任責任的人而言。

And it can happen that even the most stupid analyst—I don't know whether this extreme term exists, it
is a function that I designate here only in the way one designates that sort of mythical number in logic
which is, for example, the greatest number that may be expressed in so many words—even the most
stupid analyst realizes it, recognizes it and directs the analysis towards what remains for him the
subject who is supposed to know. This is a mere detail, and almost an anecdote. Let us now begin the
examination of what is really at issue.

即使是愚不可及的精神分析師（容我使用這個偏激的術語），我所指明的移情的功用，就像是
我們指明一個邏輯的神秘數字，例如，最大數字用許多字來表達。即使是愚不可及的精神分析師
都會體會到移情，認出移情，並且將精神分析引導到應該知道的主體的其它方面。這只是個粗略
說法，近乎八卦軼聞。讓我們再檢查一下真正的問題所在。

The analyst, I said, occupies this place in as much as he is the object of the transference. Experience
shows us that when the subject enters analysis, he is far from giving the analyst this place.

我要說，精神分析師佔有作為移情的對象這個地位。我們從精神分析的經驗獲知，當主體進入精
神分析時，他絲毫沒有打算給予精神分析師這個地位。

For the moment let us leave the Cartesian hypothesis that the psycho-analyst is a deceiver. This
hypothesis is not to be excluded absolutely from the phenomenological context of certain entries into

5
analysis. But psycho-analysis shows us that what, above all in the initial phase, most limits the
confidence of the patient, his abandonment to the analytic rule, is the threat that the psycho-analyst
may be deceived by him.

我們暫時不去討論笛卡爾的假設命題：精神分析師是一位騙子。只是，從某些精神分析的諸般現
象來看，這個假設命題無法完全被排除。但是精神分析經驗告訴我們，在剛開始的階段，病人的
信任，以及他完全遵守精神分析的規定，最大的阻礙是，唯恐精神分析師會被他蒙騙過去。

How often in our experience does it happen that we discover only very late some important
biographical detail? Suppose, for example, that at a particular moment in his life, the subject contracted
a venereal disease. But why didn't you tell me earlier? one might ask, if one is still naive enough.
Because, the analysand may reply, I had told you earlier, you might have regarded it as responsible, in
part at least, perhaps even wholly, for my disorders and I am not here for you to find an organic cause
for them.

在我們精神分析的經驗，曾經發生多少次，我們只是到很後來，才發現到一些重要的傳記的細
節？例如，在病人一生中的某一個特別時刻，主體傳染上梅毒性病。「你為什麼不早一點告訴
我？」假如我們還懵懂不覺，我們可能會這樣問。被分析的病人可能會回答說：「因為我若先告訴
你了，你可能會將部份責任，甚至是全部責任，怪罪到我的性病。而我來找你求助，不是要你將
原因歸咎於我的生理機能。」

This is an example that is unlimited in its implications, and which may be understood in a number of
different ways—from the angle of social prejudice, of scientific discussion, of the confusion that
remains around the very principle of analysis. I quote it here only as an illustration of the fact that the
patient may think that the analyst may be misled if he gives him certain facts. He holds back certain
facts so that the analyst may not go too quickly. I could give you other, better examples of this.
Should not he who may be misled (être trompé) be afortiori under suspicion of being capable, quite
simply, of being mistaken (se tromper)?

這是一個攤開天窗說明白的例子，我們可以用不同方式來解讀，從社會偏見的角度，從科學討
論的角度，從精神分析原理的混淆角度。我在這裡引述它，只是舉例說明，病人可能認為自己胡
言亂語，可以誤導精神分析師這個事實。他保留某些事實，以免精神分析師太快下斷語。我還可
以給你們舉其它更好的例子。被誤導的精神分析師，他的診療能力，難道不是因此更應該受到置
疑，單純來說，受到誤解嗎？

Now, that certainly is the limit. It is around this being mistaken (Ce SC tromper) that the balance lies
of that subtle, infinitesimal point that I wish to mark.

6
現在若是確定回答是肯定，那就是它的限制。我希望標明的那個微妙及奧妙的平衡點，就位在那
個被誤解的四周。

Given that analysis may, on the part of certain subjects, be put in question at its very outset, and
suspected of being a lure —how is it that around this being mistaken something stops? Even the
psycho-analyst put in question is credited at some point with a certain infallibility, which means that
certain intentions, betrayed, perhaps, by some chance gesture, will sometimes be attributed even to the
analyst put in question, You did that to test me!

假如考慮到，對於某些主體，精神分析一開始就會受到質疑，並且被懷疑是一個陷阱，那這個
位在被誤解的四周的那個平衡點，如何能得到？即使是受到質疑的精神分析師，在某些時候，
曾被推崇是診斷如神，這意味著，某些的意圖，若是在不經意間洩露出來，可以歸咎於被質疑
的精神分析師的問題：「你故意來考驗我！」

The Socratic discussion introduced the following theme—that the recognition of the conditions for the
good in itself would have something irresistible for man. This is the paradox of the teaching, if not of
Socrates himself—what do we know about him other than through the Platonic comedy ?—I will not
even say Plato's comedy—for Plato develops in the terrain of the comic dialogue and leaves all the
questions open—but of a certain exploitation of Platonism, which may be said to perpetuate itself in
general derision. For, as we all know, the most perfect recognition of the conditions of the good will
never prevent anyone from dashing into its opposite. So what is it all about, this trust placed in the
analyst? How are we to know that he wishes this good, let alone for another?

蘇格拉底的討論介紹以下的主題：體認善行本身的情況，對於人是不可抗拒的力量。這是我們教
學的矛盾，更不用說是蘇格拉底的矛盾。除了透過柏拉圖的喜劇，我們對於蘇格拉底懂得多少呢
我甚至要說，柏拉圖對話錄表現的不是喜劇，而是某種柏拉圖理念的廣播。因為柏拉圖發揮喜劇
對話的這個平台，然後開放所有的問題懸而未決。據說，柏拉圖的理念雖然飽受冷嘲熱諷，卻是
迄今屹立不搖。大家都知道，善行的情況雖然被人體認得千真萬確，人人卻還照常朝相反方向的
惡行，橫衝直撞。那麼，病人對於精神分析師的信任，究竟是怎麼一會事？我們如何能夠知道，
精神分析師所作所為是善行，遑論是對另外一個人的善行？

Let me explain. Who does not know from experience that it is possible not to want to ejaculate? Who
does not know from experience, knowing the recoil imposed on everyone, in so far as it involves
terrible promises, by the approach of jouissance as such? Who does not know that one may not wish to
think?—the entire universal college of professors is there as evidence.

讓我解釋一下。從精神分析的經驗，有誰不知道，男女做愛時，堅忍不早洩是可能的。從精神分
析經驗，有誰不知道，高潮來臨時，深怕體內洩精會招來懷孕後果，每個人常會緊急撤退？有

7
誰不知道，做愛時的欲罷不能，要渾然忘掉思維？全世界的大學教授，可以在此做個見證。

But what does not wanting to desire mean? The whole of analytic experience—which merely gives
form to what is for each individual at the very root of his experience—shows us that not to want to
desire and to desire are the same thing.

但是壓抑欲望意味著什麼？所有的精神分析的經驗，不過是在表達每個人在自己經驗的核心，
所存在的問題。我們從那裡知道，壓抑欲望跟欲望本身是相同一回事。

To desire involves a defensive phase that makes it identical with not wanting to desire. Not wanting to
desire is wanting not to desire. This discipline which, in order to find a way out of the impasse of the
Socratic interrogation, was practiced by people who were not only specifically philosophers, but,
in their own way, some kind of practitioners of religion—the Stoics and the Epicureans. The subject
knows that not to want to desire has in itself something as irrefutable as that Moebius strip that has no
underside, that is to say, that in following it, one will come back mathematically to the surface that is
supposed to be its other side.

欲望牽涉到防衛的部份，這個防衛部份使它跟壓抑欲望相同一致。壓抑欲望等於是設法不要欲望
為了找到一個方法，避開蘇格拉底的詰問的僵局，不但某些哲學家，在實踐這種自我克制，而
且某些的宗教的修行者，如斯多葛學派及伊璧鳩魯學派，也都以各自的方式在進行。主體知道，
不要去欲望本身有無法反駁的道理，就像莫比烏斯帶，表裡無二般無法反駁。換言之，我們回到
數學角度來觀看，應該是裡面的部份，其實就是表面。

It is at this point of meeting that the analyst is awaited. In so far as the analyst is supposed to know, he
is also supposed to set out in search of unconscious desire. This is why I say—I will illustrate it for you
next time with a small topological drawing that has already been on the blackboard—that desire is the
axis, the pivot, the handle, the hammer, by which is applied the force-element, the inertia, that lies
behind what is formulated at first, in the discourse of the patient, as demand, namely, the transference.
The axis, the common point of this two-edged axe, is the desire of the analyst, which I designate here
as an essential function. And let no one tell me that I do not name this desire, for it is precisely this
point that can be articulated only in the relation of desire to desire.

就在這個表裡相會的時刻，我們期待精神分析師。既然精神分析師應該知道，他也應該出發去尋
找無意識的欲望。這就是為什麼我說，欲望是軸心、是樞紐、是把手、是鐵鎚。憑藉它們，先前病人
陳述及說明的背後的需求，換言之，就是移情，才能發揮力量的因素及它的慣性定理。這一點，
我下一次再舉例說明，它的小小地形圖，我已經畫在黑板上。這個軸心，這個雙邊利斧的共同點
就是精神分析師的欲望。我在此指明出來，當著是一個重要的功用。這個欲望，我沒有明確指明
是什麼欲望，因為這一點，確實只有憑藉欲望跟欲望的關係，才表達得出來。

8
This relation is internal. Man's desire is the desire of the Other. Is there not, reproduced here, the
element of alienation that I designated for you in the foundation of the subject as such? If it is merely at
the level of the desire of the Other that man can recognize his desire, as desire of the Other, is there not
something here that must appear to him to be an obstacle to his fading, which is a point at which his
desire can never be recognized? This obstacle is never lifted, nor ever to be lifted, for analytic
experience shows us that it is in seeing a whole chain come into play at the level of the desire of the
Other that the subject's desire is constituted.

這個欲望跟欲望的關係是內在的。人的欲望就是大它者的欲望。在這裡被複製的，難道不就是我
跟你們所指明的，人作為主體的基礎，所產生的疏離的因素？假如僅僅是在大它者的欲望的層
次，人才能夠體認出他的欲望，就是對於大它者的欲望，那麼，難道不是有某件東西，是主體
萬萬不可消失的障礙？這個東西，難道不就是欲望始終無法被體認出來的原因？這個障礙從來
沒有被消除過，也無法被消除，因為精神分析的經驗告訴我們，主體的欲望被形成，就是在大
它者的欲望的層次，觀看意符的鎖鏈運作的時刻。

In the relation of desire to desire, something of alienation is preserved, not with the same elements—
not with the S1 and S2 of the first dyad of signifiers, from which I deduced the formula of the
alienation of the subject in my last but one lecture—but with, on the one hand, what has been
constituted on the basis of primal repression, of the fall, of the Unterdruckung, of the binary signifier,
and, on the other hand, what appears first as lack in what is signified by the dyad of signifiers,
in the interval that links them, namely, the desire of the Other.

在欲望跟欲望之間的關係，某種疏離的東西被保留下來，但是元素並不相同。不是在上上次的演
講中，我推論出來的主體的疏離的公式，善惡首次對立時的第一意符及第二意符，而是，一方
面亞當與夏娃從伊甸園墮落時的原始壓抑所產生的疏離，另一方面，大它者的欲望，聯接意符
的善惡對立的表達，首先形成的欠缺，造成的疏離。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw