'9

FROM INTERPRETATION TO THE TRANSFERENCE

從解釋到移情

Field of the ego and field of the Other

自我的領域與大它者的領域

As far as vocabulary is concerned, what I am going to introduce today will, unfortunately, not be very
familiar to you. We shall be dealing with the most ordinary terms, such as identification, idealization,
projection, introjection. These are not easy terms to handle and it is not made any easier by the fact that
they already have meanings.

就辭彙而言，今天我要介紹的內容，恐怕你們不太熟悉。我們將處理一些很普遍的術語，諸如認
同、理想化、投射、及內射。這些術語不好處理，儘管已經意義鮮明，還是不好懂。

What could be more ordinary than to identify? It even seems like the essential operation of thought. To
idealize, that too might prove useful when the psychologistic position becomes more experimental. To
project and to introject are seen by some people as reciprocal terms. Yet I pointed out long ago —
perhaps this fact should be realized—that one of these terms refers to a field in which the symbolic is
dominant, the other to a field in which the imaginary is dominant, which must mean that, in a certain
dimension at least, they never meet.

還有什麼比認同更耳熟能詳？它甚至似乎是我們思維的基本運作。理想化也是老生常談，每次我
們嘗試心理學的應用時，我們就被冠上此語。投射跟內射，則是被一些人當著可以互換的術語。
可是，我很久以前就指出，請大家注意這個事實，其中一個術語提到一個符號界佔優勢的領域，
另一個則是提到想像界佔優勢，這必然意味著，至少在某些方面，它們永遠不會相遇。

The intuitive use of these terms, on the basis of the feeling that one has of understanding them, and of
understanding them in an isolated way as revealing their dimension in the common understanding, is
obviously at the source of all the misapprehensions and confusions. It is the common fate of anything
to do with discourse. In common discourse, he who speaks, at least in his native language, expresses
himself with such ease, with such evident familiarity, that it is to the most common user of a language,
to the uneducated man, that one has recourse if one wishes to know the correct usage of a term.

對於這些術語的本能的運用，根據我們對它們的瞭解，將它抽離出來瞭解，當著是大家的共識，
顯而易見，它位於所有誤解及混淆的來源。這是任何牽涉到表述時，大家的共同命運。在共識表
述時，說話者能夠如此泰然自若，如此駕輕就熟地表達自己，至少在使用自己的母語表達時。但
是他對象若是一般的使用者，或未受過教育的文盲，他將會發現一個術語的正確用法，鮮少不

1
被誤解的。

As soon as he wishes to speak, man is orientated in the fundamental topology of language, which is
very different from the simplistic realism in which he who thinks that he is at ease in the domain of
science all too often confines himself: The natural use of such expressions—let us select some at
random—as in one's own heart (a part soi),for good or ill (bon gre mal gre), a business (une afaire),
which is different from a thing to be done (une chose âfaire), implies the enveloping topology in which
the subject recognizes himself when he speaks spontaneously.

一但人想要表述，他的定位是在語言的基本地形學。這截然不同於單純的現實情境，自以為在科
學領域周旋自在的人，在現實情境常感局促。有些俗語脫口而出，讓我們隨便舉幾個例子，例如
「言必由衷」、
「不計毀譽」、
「一己之事」等，跟實際言行是兩碼子事。因為這意味著，主體侃侃而談
時，體認出自己在周遭地形的處境。

If I can speak to psycho-analysts and try to locate to which implicit topology they are referring when
using each of the terms I have just listed, it is obviously because, on the whole—however incapable
they may often be, for lack of teaching, of articulating them—they frequently make adequate use of
them, with the same spontaneity as the ordinary man uses ordinary speech. Of course, if they are
determined to force the results of a case, and to understand where they do not understand, they will
inevitably make a forced use of these results.

假如我跟精神分析師交談，設法找出他們使用剛才我列舉的幾個成語時，提到的地形處境意味
著什麼，那是因為大體上，他們對於語言，跟一般人使用俚語一樣，總是駕輕就熟，儘管事實
上他們對於這些俚語的表達內涵，未必深刻體會，未必受過嚴謹的語言學訓練。當然，假如他們
想要草率從事，想要強不知以為知，他們必然會爛用這些陳腔濫調。

In such instances, there will be few people to develop them. Today, then, I'm referring to this fact in the
psycho-analytic use of certain words, in order to be able to harmonize them with the evidence of a
topology that I have already introduced here and which is, for example, embodied on the blackboard in
the schema which shows you the field of the original Ich, the objectifiable Ich, in the last resort, in the
nervous system, the Ich of the homeostatic field, in relation to which the field of Lust, of pleasure, is
distinguished from the field of Unlust.

在這些情境，很少人會對他們詳加驗證。因此，我今天提到這個精神分析界，術語浮濫使用的事
實，為了提供證據，使大家明白我剛在這裡介紹過的地形情境。例如，我在黑板上所畫的這個基
型，讓你們明白「原我」、
「客體化的我」，「體內平衡的我」在神經系統各有領域，彼此的快樂的領
域跟不快樂的領域截然不同。

2
I have already pointed out that Freud distinguishes clearly between the level of the Ich, for example in
the article on the Triebe, when stressing both that it is manifested as organized, which is a narcissistic
sign, and that it is precisely to this extent that it is strictly articulated in the field of the real. In the real,
it distinguishes, it privileges only that which is reflected in its field by an effect of Lust, as return to
homeostasis.

我已經指出，佛洛伊德清楚區別「我」的層次。例如，在「欲望驅力」一文中，他強調驅力的表現是
有條理的，自戀的跡象，以及驅力在真實界的領域，表現確實到達這個程度。在真實界，驅力區
別並且鍾愛快樂的情意在這個領域的反映，因為它回到了體內平衡。

But that which does not favor homeostasis and is maintained at all costs as Unlust bites still more into
its field. Thus, what is of the order of Unlust is inscribed in the ego as non-ego, negation, splitting-off
of the ego. The non-ego is not to be confused with what surrounds it, the vastness of the real. Non-ego
is distinguished as a foreign body, fremde Objekt. It is there, situated in the lunula constituted by the
two small Euler-type circles.

但是，不快樂的情意，雖然在體內平衡不受鍾愛，卻是千方百計還維持著，緊咬住這個領域。因
此，不快樂情意鐫刻在自我裡，作為非自我，自我的負面，自我的分裂。這個非自我，不應該跟
包圍它四周的廣大的真實界混淆。非自我被區別為一個外來的身體。在那裡，有兩個微積分圓形
平等切割形成的半月形領域，就位在那裡。

Look at the blackboard. In the register of pleasure, then, we can make for ourselves an objectifiable
foundation, just as the scientist is foreign to the object whose functioning he observes. But we are not
simply that, and even if we were, we would also have to be the subject who thinks. And in so far as we
are the subject who thinks, we are implicated in a quite different way, in as much as we depend on the
field of the Other, which was there long before we came into the world, and whose circulating
structures determine us as subjects.

請看黑板上。在快樂的領域，我們能夠替自己建立一個客體化的基礎，就像是一位科學家正在觀
察一個客體的功用，但是對於這個客體，他自己卻陌生無知。但是不僅是如此，即使我們能夠知
曉，我們也必須是能夠思維的主體。因為我們是能夠思維的主體，我們介入的方式就各有不同，
依靠我們的大它者的領域而定。大它者在我們進入這個世界之前，早先存在。大它者的運作結構
決定我們作為主體是怎樣一種人。

It is a question, then, of knowing in what field the different things with which we deal in the field of
analysis occur. Some occur at the level of the first field, of the Ich, and others—which should be
distinguished from the first, because if one confuses them, one is lost—in the other field, the field of

3
the Other. I have already shown you the essential articulations of this other field in the two functions
that I have defined and articulated as alienation and separation.

因此，問題是要知道，在精神分析領域，我們處理的不同的事情，發生在怎樣的領域。有些發生
在第一領域的層次，「我」的層次，還有一些則是發生在大它者的領域。我們應該區別這兩種領域
因為混淆而談，我們就弄不清楚。我已經告訴過你們，這兩種功用中，這個另外領域的重要表達
構成我所謂的疏離與分開。

The rest of my discourse today presupposes that you have thought about these two functions since I
introduced them to you—in other words, that you have tried to make them function at different levels,
to put them to the test.

我今天的其餘表述，預先假設，你們曾經思考過這兩種功用，自從我跟你們介紹以來。換言之，
你們曾經設法讓它們在不同層次發揮功用，去驗證它們。

I have already tried to embody certain consequences of the very particular vel that constitutes
alienation—the placing in suspense of the subject, its vacillation, the collapse of meaning— in such
familiar forms as your money or your or freedom or death, which are reproduced from a being or
meaning—terms that I do not propose without some reluctance. I would ask you not to be too hasty in
overloading them with meanings, for if you do you will only succeed in sinking them. So I feel that it is
incumbent upon me to warn you of this at the outset.

我已經設法具體表現，這個組成疏離的特別的「選擇」，產生的某些的結果：主體的懸置，立場
的搖擺不定，意義的崩塌。我用的是一些耳熟能詳的選擇，如「要錢？還是要自由？還是要命？」
我是從「要存在？還是要意義？」的選擇衍生而來。這些術語，我剛使用時，還頗有些猶豫。但是
我建議你們不要太急切給它們賦予過多聯想。因為假如你聯想太多，你們反而會使它們的意義晦
暗不明。所以，我一開始就必須先警告你們。

Nevertheless, I am introducing here what my discourse will try to articulate, if possible, next year. It is
a question of something that ought to be entitled the subjective positions. For all this preparation,
concerning the fundamentals of analysis, should normally serve to show—since nothing can be
properly centred except the position of the subject—what the articulation of analysis, on the basis of
desire, makes it possible to illustrate about these fundamentals.

可是，我現在要跟你們介紹，我明年可能要講述的內容。我要談的問題，應該可以命名為「主觀
的立場」。關於精神分析的基本原理，一切準備就是用來顯示：除了主體的位置，別無適當的中
心。精神分析所表達的內容，以欲望為基礎，使我們得以舉例說明這些基本的原理。

4
Subjective positions, then, of what? If I relied on what is available, I would say —the subjective
positions of existence, with all the advantages that this term may possess from being already much in
the air. Unfortunately, this term would allow us a rigorous application only at the level of the neurotic
— which, indeed, would be no small matter. That is why I will say the subjective positions of being. I
am not committing myself in advance to my title, I may find a better one, but, in any case,
that's what it's about.

那麼，主觀的立場是什麼？憑藉現有的發現，我會說，就是主體對於生命存在意義的立場。這個
術語已經廣泛為人知道，我引用過來，比較容易人了解。不幸地，這個術語會讓人以為，我們只
能將它使用在精神病患的層次。這可是非同小可。那就是為什麼我要提到，主體對於生命存在的
立場。對於這個標題，我尚在斟酌考量。我也許還會找到更貼切的標題，無論如何，下一次我要
演講的內容，大約是這樣。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw