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. Ho
w can we take up the thread again? The transference is unthinkable unless one se
ts 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
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 t
o know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it—quite simp
ly, signification. Signification implies, of course—and that is why I first brou
ght 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
，他應該知道，沒有一個人能
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 bein
g 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
藉以認出沒有知識的
對點的特性。這個點之所以
對
，確實是因為憑藉它本質並非知識，而是連接他的欲望到
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 ac
tually 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 c
an be mapped, as Freud shows, only in the field of narcissism. To love is, essen
tially, 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，移情效應的愛，只能
在自戀的領域，找出位置，如佛洛伊
所顯示。愛，本
質上就是希望被愛。
What emerges in the transference effect is opposed to revelation. Love intervene
s in its function, revealed here as essential, in its function as deception. Lov
e, no doubt, is a transference effect, but it is its resistance side. We are lin
ked together in awaiting this transference effect in order to be able to interpr
et, 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 r
elation of the subject to the Other,
the effect that we are, is here absolutely manifest.
移情效應所顯現的
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
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 ar
ticulates, and which is not an excuse, but the reason of the transference, namel
y, that nothing can be attained in absentia, in eftigie. This means that the tra
nsference 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 tra
nsference 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
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
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 sam
e 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 the link between the desire of the analyst and the desir
e of the patient. This is what Freud expressed in a kind of rapid sleight of han
d 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 w
ith 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 ma
ny things in history that provide us with tracks and traces here.
那就是為什麼我們能

，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
含蓄表達
，那只是病人的欲望，這樣才能
杜
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
。
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 t
o 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
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
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
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 sol
ved —this is not so at all. Since I am ready to take my leave of you for this ye
ar —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 late
r.
我們有需要做更詳盡的表達。問題會牽
到主人的欲望跟奴隸之間的關係。
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
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 t
he 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 t
he 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 wi
ll know the use that I made of this term some time ago. I will go back to this a
galma, this mystery, which, in the mist that clouds Alcibiades' vision, represen
ts something beyond all good.
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

。我指的是
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 h
e 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. A
s it happens, it is the height of irony on Plato's part to have embodied these o
nions 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 indicatio
n of just such futility, verging on buffoonery, which makes of Agathon perhaps t
he 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 o
f irony.
我們難道沒有看出，移情成形的初
輪廓？蘇格拉底的回答，不是針對對方年輕時所
的「
觀照你的靈魂，」而是某件更適合對方目前意氣風發的
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
榮人物，描繪
成小丑樣子。我想我是第一位這樣
，柏拉圖放置在他口中的有關愛情屬性的幾行，指證他
的
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
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 effe
ct that Freud says exactly the same thing about unconscious desire. Its voice, t
oo, is low, but its insistence is indestructible. Perhaps there is a relation be
tween the two. It is in the direction of some kind of kinship that we should tur
n our eyes to the slave, when it is a question of mapping what the analyst's des
ire is.
因此，牽
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

在某個地方提到他，「但是總是
同一件事。」我不希望將佛洛伊
對於無意識的欲望，
反覆陳
，跟蘇格拉底的總是
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
到精神分析師欲望是什麼的問題。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw