Lacan 412

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
There is the Other of the other
大它者之外，別無大它者

So our attention is now drawn to the subjective status of the signifying chain in the
unconscious, or rather in primal repression.

所以我們的注意力現在被吸引到，意符鎖鏈的主體在無意識界的地位，換句話
說，處於人出生之初受到壓抑的地位。

In our deduction it is easier to understand why it was necessary to question oneself

regarding the function that supports the subject of the unconscious, to grasp that it is
difficult to designate that subject anywhere as subject of a statement, and therefore as
the articulator, when he does not even know that he is speaking. Hence the concept of
the drive, in which he is designated by an organic, oral, anal, etc, mapping that
satisfies the requirement of being all the farther away from speaking the more he
speaks.

依照我們的推論，我們比較容易了解，在無意識界的主體，為什麼必須先質疑
自己，才能發揮自己的功能，我們了解到，我們很難指明任何地方的那個主體，
一方面作為陳述的主體，另一方面，也作為一位表達的主體，當他甚至不知道
自己正在說話。因此，欲望驅力的觀念是，人被口腔、肛門等器官的欲望驅力制
約，
這些制約要求，主體越是說話，他距離說話就越遠。

But although our completed graph enables us to place the drive as the treasure of the
signifiers, its notation as ( $ ◇ D)maintains its structure by linking it with diachrony.
It is that which proceeds from demand when the subject disappears in it. It is obvious
enough that demand also disappears, with the single exception that the cut remains,
for this cut remains present in that which distinguishes the drive from the organic
function it inhabits; namely, its grammatical artifice, so manifest in the reversions of
its articulation to both source and object—Freud is unfailingly illuminating on this
matter.

1
雖然根據這個完整的圖形，我們能夠將欲望驅力的位置當著是意符的寶藏庫，
它的象徵符號( $ ◇ D)跟歷時性分析連接，以維持它的結構。當主體從那裡消失
的時候，要求就繼續前進。顯而易見的，要求也會消失，僅有的例外是，那個切
割始終存在。這個切割始終存在於欲望驅力與它所駐留的器官的功用區分的地方。
換句話說，欲望驅力的表達生動有力，不論是它的起源，或是目標的來回表達。
對於這一點，佛洛伊德毫無疑問，給我們的啟發最為可貴。

The very delimitation of the ‘erogenous zone’ that the drive isolates from the
metabolism of the function ( the act of devouring concerns other organs than the
mouth—ask one of Pavlov’s dogs) is the result of a cut ( coupure) expressed in the
anatomical mark ( trait) of a margin or border—lips, ‘ the enclosure of the teeth’, the
rim of the anus, the tip of the penis, the vagina, the slit formed by the eyelids, even the
horn-shaped aperture of the ear ( I am avoiding embryological details here).
Respiratory erogeneity has been little studied, but it is obviously through the spasm
that it comes into play.

欲望驅力將「性感地帶」跟新陳代謝的功能分隔開來（吞食食物的器官不僅局限
於嘴巴，巴夫洛夫的狗的試驗已經證明。）這種除掉限制是一個切割的結果，在
邊緣或邊界的解剖痕跡表達，例如，嘴唇、「牙齒的緊閉」、肛門的邊緣、陽具的尖
端、陰戶、眼皮形成的縫隙、甚至耳朵的角狀洞口（器官的胚胎學細節，我就不一
一枚舉了）。呼吸跟色情的關係，目前的研究不多，但是顯而易見，呼吸還是要
透過這些器官的開啟，才能運作。

2
Observe that this mark of the cut is no less obviously present in the object described
by analytic theory: the mamilla, faeces, the phallus ( imaginary object), the urinary
flow. ( An unthinkable list, if one adds, as I do, the phoneme, the gaze, the voice—the
nothing.) for is it not obvious that this feature, this partial feature, rightly emphasized
in objects, is applicable not because these objects are part of a total object, the body,
but because they represent only partially the function that produces them?

請注意，這個切割的痕跡同樣存在於精神分析理論所描述的客體：乳頭、排洩物、
陽具（想像界的客體）、排尿等等。（名單不勝枚舉，如音素、凝視、聲音、甚至是
空無本身）。我們應用這些特徵，部份的特徵，以客體方式，給予適當時的強調，
不是因為這些客體是身體的整體的部份，而是因為它們只是部份代表產生它們
的功用。這不是顯而易見嗎？

These objects have one common feature in my elaboration of them—they have no

specular image, or, in other words, alterity. It is what enables them to be the ‘ stuff’,
or rather the lining, though not in any sense the reverse, of the very subject that one
takes to be the subject of consciousness. For this subject, who thinks he can accede to
himself by designating himself in the statement, is no more than such an object. Ask
the writer about the anxiety that he experiences when faced by the blank sheet of
paper, and he will tell you who is the turd of his phantay.

3
依照我的構想，這些客體有一個共同特徵：它們沒有鏡中影像，換句話說，它
們跟大它者牽扯不到關係。這就是為什麼它們能夠是主體的「好夥伴」或陪襯物，
而不是主體是它們的「好夥伴」或陪襯物。我們把這個主體當著是意識的主體。意
識的主體僅僅是如此一個客體，因為他以為他能夠在陳述中表明自己身份，他
就能夠接納自己。問問作家，當他面對空白的稿紙，靈感不來，他經驗到的焦慮
是什麼？他會告訴你，誰是他橫溢才華的主子？

It is to this object that cannot be grasped in the mirror that the specular image lends its
clothes. A substance caught in the net of the shadow, and which, robbed of its shadow-
swelling volume, holds out once again the tired lure of the shadow as if it were
substance.

這個無法在鏡中被理解的客體，鏡中影像可以給它增添裝飾。於是，這個客體成
為一個陷於陰影之網的物質，當它被剝奪掉它虛有其表的膨脹的陰影後，它再
一次樂此不疲地展開陰影的陷阱，好像它真的就是一個物質。

What the graph now offers is situated at the point at which every signifying chain
prides itself on looping its signification. If we are to expect such an effect from the
unconscious enunciation, it is to be found here in S (Φ), and read as: signifier of a
lack in the Other, inherent in its very function s the treasure of the signifier. And this
is so even though the other is required ( che vuoi) is to respond to the value of this
treasure, that is to say, to reply, from its place in the lower chain certainly, but also in
the signifiers that constitute the upper chain, in terms of drive, in other words.

這個圖形現在所提供我們的東西，位置是在每一個意符的鎖鏈沾沾自喜已經套
牢它的意義的那一點。假如我們想要從無意識的表達，得到意義套牢這樣的效果，
那必須要在作為大它者的理想自我 S (Φ)那裡才能找到。這個符號公式的讀法是：
在大它者領域作為一個欠缺的意符，本質上的功用是充當意符的寶藏庫。即使被
質疑「你到底期望我什麼」時，大它者不得不以這個意符的寶藏庫貯藏的價值作
為應，換句話說，大它者的回答，不但要從它在意符鎖鏈底層的位置，而且要
用組成上層意符鎖鏈的意符，換句話說，欲望驅力的意符。

The lack referred to here is indeed that which I have already formulated: that there is
no Other of the Other. But is this mark made by the Unbeliever of the truth really the
last word that is worth giving in reply to the question, ‘ What does the Other want of
me?’, when we, the analysts, are its mouthpiece? Surely not, and precisely because
there is nothing doctrinal about our office. We are answerable to no ultimate truth; we

4
are neither for nor against any particular religion.

這裡所提到的欠缺，確實是我曾經說明過：大它者之外，別無大它者。但是，由
不信仰真理的人所表達的這個論述，真的是最後的定論嗎？在回答「大它者到底
期望我什麼？」的問題之前，難道不值得我們再三沉思嗎？我們精神分析師，難
道就是真理的代言人嗎？當然不盡是，主要是因為我們精神分析學並沒有什麼
主義要宣導。我們並沒有宣稱，我們擁有終極的真理。對於任何一門宗教，我們
既不特別推崇，也不排斥。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw