拉岡講座255

IN YOU MORE THAN YOU

不僅是你的肉身

the objet petit a—

小客體
2
The objet a is that object which, in actual experience, in the operation and process sustained by the
transference, is signaled to us by a special status.

小客體以一個特別的地位，跟我們傳遞訊息。在實際的經驗中，這個客體的運作跟過程，以移情
方式來維持。

One constantly has on one's lips, without quite knowing what one means, the term the liquidation of the
transference. What, in fact, does the term mean? Exactly what assets are being liquidated? Or is it a
question of some kind of operation in an alembic? Is it a question of—It must go somewhere and empty
itself somewhere? If the transference is the enaction of the unconscious, does one mean that the
transference might be a means of liquidating the unconscious? Do we no longer have any unconscious
after an analysis? Or is it, to take up what I said before, the subject who is supposed to know who must
be liquidated as such?

我們常常喃喃自語「移情的清償」這個術語，但是並不十分清楚是什麼意思。事實上，這個術語是
什麼意思？有怎樣的債務確實被清償？或者，那只是像是某種蒸發消失的運作？那像是「到某個
地方掏空自己」的問題嗎？假如移情是無意識的扮演，那意味著，移情可能是一個清償無意識的
方法嗎？經過精神分析後，我們難道不再有無意識嗎？或者容我舊話重說，那是應該知道的主
體應該如此被清償嗎？

It would be odd all the same if this subject who is supposed to know, supposed to know something
about you, and who, in fact, knows nothing, should be regarded as liquidated, at the very moment
when, at the end of the analysis, he begins at last, about you at least, to know something. It is therefore
at the
moment what he takes on most substance, that the subject who is supposed to know ought to be
supposed to have been vaporized.

假如這個應該知道，應該知道有關你的一些事情的主體，而實際上卻是一無所知，在經過精神
分析之後，應該被認為是已經清償，他終於開始知道一些至少關於你的事情，這聽起來還是有
點奇怪。因此，就在他具有某種意義內涵的時刻，這個應該知道的主體，應該被認為是已經蒸發

1
消失了。

It can only be a question, then, if the term liquidation has any meaning, of the permanent liquidation of
that deception by which the transference tends to be exercised in the direction of the closing up of the
unconscious. I have already explained to you how it works, by referring to it the narcissistic relation by
which the subject becomes an object worthy of love. From his reference to him who must love him, he
tries to induce the Other into a mirage relation in which he convinces him of being worthy of love.

因此，假如清償這個術語有任何意義，那問題將是，朝無意識封閉的方向，移情所從事的那個
欺騙，被一勞永逸地清償。我已經用主體成為值得愛的客體的自戀的關係，跟你們解釋過，它如
何運作。從他提到對方必須愛他，他設法誘拐大它者進入海市蜃樓般的幻想，說服他值得愛。

Freud designates for us its natural culmination in the function known as identification. The
identification in question is not—and Freud articulates it with great subtlety, I would ask you to go
back and read the two chapters in Group and the Analysis of the Ego that I referred to last time, the first
is called Identification and the second Hypnosis and the State of being in Love
— the identification in question is not specular, immediate identification. It is its support. It supports
the perspective chosen by the subject in the field of the Other, from which specular identification may
be seen in a satisfactory light. The point of the ego ideal is that from which the subject will see
himself, as one says, as others see him—which will enable him to support himself in a dual situation
that is satisfactory for him from the point of view of love.

佛洛伊德用眾所周知的認同的功用，將它的特性發揮得淋漓盡致。這個值得商榷的認同，並不是
魅影般的當下認同。佛洛伊德表達得細膩微妙，我建議你們回去重讀我上次推薦的「團體與自我
的分析」的那兩章。第一次被稱為「認同」，第二次則被稱為「催眠與戀愛狀態」。

As a specular mirage, love is essentially deception. It is situated in the field established at the level of
the pleasure reference, of that sole signifier necessary to introduce a perspective centred on the Ideal
point, capital I, placed somewhere in the Other, from which the Other sees me, in the form I like to be
seen.

作為一個魅影的幻想，愛基本上是一種欺騙。它的位置被建立在歡樂符號的層次。唯一需要的意
符，用來介紹一個觀點，集中在那個大寫字母的「我」的理想的點，然後被放置在大它者的某個
地方。從那裡，大它者觀看我，以我喜歡被觀看的形象。

Now, in this very convergence to which analysis is called by the element of deception that there is in
the transference, something is encountered that is paradoxical— the discovery of the analyst. This
discovery is understandable only at the other level, the level at which we have situated the relation of

2
alienation.

現在，就在精神分析被欺騙的因素召喚的匯聚點，某件矛盾的東西被邂逅，那就是精神分析師
的發現，產生了移情。這個發現只有在另一個層次，才有辦法理解。這個層次就是我們所謂的疏
離的關係。

This paradoxical, unique, specified object we call the objet a. I have no wish to rehash the whole thing
again, but I will present it for you in a more syncopated way, stressing that the analysand says to his
partner, to the analyst, what amounts to this—I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you
something more than you—the objet petit a—I mutilate you.

這個矛盾、獨特、明確的客體，我們稱之為小客體。我不想在這裡舊調重彈，但是容我簡單扼要地
複述一下。重點是，被分析的病人對他的夥伴，對他的精神分析師，相當等於是說：我愛你，但
是微妙地，我愛的不僅僅是肉身的你，我把你當小客體，我使你殘缺。

This is the meaning of that breast-complex, that mammal complex, whose relation to the oral drive
Bergler saw so clearly, except that the orality in question has nothing to do with food, and that the
whole stress is placed on this effect of mutilation.

這就是乳房情結，也就是哺乳情結的意義。這個情結跟口腔驅力的關係，波格勒一目瞭然，除了
兩點：所謂的口腔跟食物沒有絲毫關係，及整個重點放置在殘缺產生的影響。

I give myself to you, the patient says again, but this of my person—as they say—Oh, mystery! is
changed inexplicably into a gift of skit—a term that is also essential to our experience. When this
swerve is achieved, at the conclusion of the interpretative elucidation, we are able to understand
retroactively that vertigo, for example, of the white page, which, for a particular character, who is
gifted but stuck at the limits of the psychotic, is like the centre of the symptomatic barrage which
blocks off for him every access to the Other. If, quite literally, he cannot touch this white page at which
his ineffable intellectual effusions come to a stop, it is because he apprehends it only as a piece of
lavatory paper.

「我委身於你」，病人再次說，「但我這個人，如他們所說，已經不可思議地變成為一件雜七雜八
的禮物。真是匪夷所思！」這樣的告白，在我們精神分析經驗，也是非常重要。當我們經過一番分
析解釋，結論到達這樣的轉折，我們能夠回顧地了解到，例如，那種對於空白頁的暈眩。
對於某個聰明絕頂，但是呈現精神症狀的特定的人物，那種暈眩，就像是病徵難關的中心，阻
擋他無論如何也無法接近大它者。望文生義來說，假如他無法碰觸到這個空白頁，縱使他在知識
’方面怎樣的才華橫溢，他也只有望而卻步，那是因為他理解這個空白頁，只當是一張衛生紙。

3
How shall I describe for you the effect of this presence of the objet a, rediscovered always and
everywhere, in the movement of the transference? I do not have much time today, but I will make use,
by way of illustration, of a short fable, an apologue, which I happened to embark on the other day, with
a smaller group of listeners. I will provide an end for it, so that if I apologize to them for repeating
myself; they will see that what follows at least is new.

我要怎樣跟你們描述小客體存在的影響？它總是在移情的時刻一再出現，無所不在。今天，我沒
有足夠時間，但是我會使用一篇短寓言，或道德寓意，作為說明。那是前幾天，我剛好聽到，跟
一小群聽眾。我會給這篇寓言畫蛇添足，這樣他們若怪罪我拾人牙慧，他們會看出，以下我說的
內容，其實是我匠心獨具。

What happens when the subject begins to speak to the analyst?—to the analyst, that is to say, to the
subject who is supposed to know, but of whom it is certain that he still knows nothing. It is to him that
is offered something that will first, necessarily, take the form of demand. Everyone knows that it is this
that has orientated all thinking on analysis in the direction of a recognition of the function of
frustration. But what does the subject demand? That is the whole question, for the subject knows very
well that, whatever his appetites may be, whatever his needs may be, none of them will find
satisfaction in analysis, and that the most he can expect of it is to organize his menu.

當主體開始跟精神分析師交談時，那是什麼情況？對於精神分析師，換言之，對於應該知道的
主體，但是確實依舊是一無所知的主體。對於這個主體，病人呈現他的問題，必然是用要求對方
解答的方式。大家都知道，就是這種方式，將所有的思維都導向精神分析，朝向自己遭受挫折的
功能能夠獲得承認。但是病人要求什麼？這是整個問題所在，因為病人很清楚地知道，不管他的
企圖是什麼，不管他的需要是什麼，沒有一樣能夠在精神分析這裡得到滿足。充其量，他所能期
待的是組織他需求菜單。

In the fable I read, when I was a child, in these early forms of strip cartoon, the poor beggar at the
restaurant door feasted himself on the smell of the roasting meat. On this occasion, the smell is the
menu, that is to say, signifiers, since we are concerned with speech only. Well! There is this
complication— and this is my fable—that the menu is written in Chinese, so the first step is to order a
translation from the patronne. She translates—imperial pâté, spring rolls, etc. etc. It may well be, if it is
the first time that you have come to a Chinese restaurant, that the translation does not tell you much
more than the original, and in the end you say to the patronne—Recommend something. This means:
you should know what I desire in all this.

在我小時候讀的這個寓言中，以連環漫畫的樣式，在餐廳門口的這位可憐乞丐，藉由聞到烤肉
的香味，嚥下簡陋的食物。在這個場合，香味就是需求菜單。換言之，意符，因為我們關心的只
是言說。我提到的這個寓言，是用中文寫成，會有理解的障礙。所以，第一步就是先從餐聽老板

4
娘那裡，請她翻譯一下。她翻譯成「帝王蟹」
「春捲」等等。假如你第一次光顧一家中國餐廳，你很
有可能發現，翻譯菜單跟原文菜單其實幫助不了多少。最後你跟餐廳老板娘說：「請推薦幾樣令
人垂涎的菜。」這意味著，「老板娘，你應該知道我垂涎什麼。」

But is so paradoxical a situation supposed, in the final resort, to end there? At this point, when you
abdicate your choice to some divination of the patronne, whose importance you have exaggerated out
of all proportion, would it not be more appropriate, if you felt like it, and if the opportunity presented
itself, to tickle her tits a bit? For one goes to a Chinese restaurant not only to eat, but to eat in the
dimensions of the exotic. If my fable means anything, it is in as much as alimentary desire has
another meaning than alimentation. It is here the support and symbol of the sexual dimension, which is
the only one to be rejected by the psyche. The drive in its relation to the part object is subjacent here.

但是，情況最後應該如此弄巧成拙嗎？在此時，當你放棄你的選擇，聽憑餐廳老板娘的推薦，
他的重要性，你實在過於高估。假如你真想要的話，假如你有機可乘的話，還不如跟老板娘打情
罵俏一番。因為我們到那家中國餐廳，是醉翁之意不在酒。假如我的寓言有什麼可發人深省的，
那就是飲食男女的欲望，絕非單純就是食物而已。性的意涵在此是支撐跟象徵，內心垂涎，卻始
終言不及義。欲望驅力與部份客體的關係是它的基礎。

Well! Paradoxical, not to say free and easy, as this little apologue may seem, it is nevertheless precisely
what is at issue in the reality of analysis. It is not enough that the analyst should support the function of
Tiresias. He must also, as Apollinaire tells us, have breasts. I mean that the operation and manipulation
of the transference are to be regulated in a way that maintains a distance between the point at which the
subject sees himself as lovable—and that other point where the subject sees himself caused as a lack by
a, and where a fills the gap constituted by the inaugural division of the subject.

雖然這個小小的寓言聽起來矛盾，而且有點輕浮，那確實是我們精神分析領域受到爭議的地方。
一位精神分析師應該扮演預言家提瑞西亞斯的功能還不夠，他還必須如詩人阿保里耐爾所說的
嫵媚動人。我的意思是，移情的運作與操控應該被規範，才能夠保持距離。一方面，主體看待自
己為可愛，另一方面，主體看待自己為客體的欠缺。中間的罅隙則由主體開始時的分裂所造成。

The petit a never crosses this gap. Recollect what we learned about the gaze, the most characteristic
term for apprehending the proper function of the objet a. This a is presented precisely, in the field of the
mirage of the narcissistic function of desire, as the object that cannot be swallowed, as it were, which
remains stuck in the gullet of the signifier. It is at this point of lack that the subject has to recognize

小客體永遠無法跨越這個罅隙。回想一下，我們探討凝視時的心得，那是最具特色的術語，用來
理解小客體的適當功用。這個小客體，確實出現在欲望的自戀功用的幻想那裡，作為無法吞嚥的
客體，換言之，被卡在意符的食道，動彈不得。主體必須認出欠缺的這個點。

5
It is for this reason that the function of the transference may be topologized in the form that I have
already produced in-my seminar on Identification—namely, the form that I have called on occasion the
internal object, that double curve that you see on the blackboard folding back upon itself, and whose
essential property is that each of its halves, following one another, comes back to back at each point
with the preceding half. Just suppose that a particular half of the curve is unfolded, then you will see
it cover up the other.

因為這個理由，移情的功用，可以被定位在我「論認同」的講座時產生的形式。換言之，這個形式
我有時候稱之為「內部的客體」，你們看到黑板上畫的那個雙重曲線的折疊。它的基本屬性是兩邊
的各一半，互相迴轉回來支撐前面一半的每一個點。假設這條曲線的特別的一半沒有展開迴轉，
那麼你們看到它會蓋滿另外一半。

That is not all. As it is a question here of a plane defined by the cut, you need only take a sheet of paper
to get, with the help of a few small collages, an exact idea of the way in which what I am going to tell
you may be conceived. It is very easy to imagine that, in short, the lobe constituted by this surface at its
point of return covers another lobe, the two constituting themselves by a form of rim. Note that this in
no way implies any contradiction, even in the most ordinary space—except that, in order to grasp its
extent, one must abstract oneself from three-dimensional space, since it is a question here only of a
topological reality that is limited to the function of a surface. You can thus conceive quite easily in the
three dimensions that one of the parts of the plane, at the moment at which the other, by its rim, returns
upon it, determines there a sort of intersection.

不僅如此。因為這是一個由切割來定義平面的問題，你們只要拿一張紙，外加幾個拼貼的幫助，
你們就會確實理解到，我告訴你們如何被構想的方式。總而言之，我們很容易想像，迴轉點蓋滿
另一半的這個表面組成的一半。兩半都是以邊緣的方式組成自己。請注意，這樣絲毫不意味著任
何矛盾，即使是在最普通的空間。除了，為了要了解它的程度，我們必須從三度空間，將自己抽
離出來，因為這是一個地形的真實界被限制於表面的功用的問題。因此，你們能夠輕易地用三度
空間來構想，平面的一部份，在另一部份繞著邊緣迴轉的時候，在那裡形成一種交會。

This intersection has a meaning outside our space. It is structurally definable, without reference to the
three dimensions, by a certain relation of the surface to itself; in so far as, returning upon itself; it
crosses itself at a point no doubt to be determined. Well! This line of intersection is for us what may
symbolize the function of identification.

這個交會有一個在我們的空間之外的意義。它在結構上的定義，不必運用到第三度空間，只要平
面跟本身的某種關係。當它迴轉到自身的時候，它在無可置疑的可決定點，跨越過自身。嗯！這

6
條交會線，對於我們而言，可能象徵著認同的功用。

In effect, by the very work that leads the subject, while telling himself in analysis, to orientate what he
says in the direction of the resistance of the transference, of deception, deception of love as well as of
aggression—something like closing up occurs and its value is marked in the very form of this spiral
developing towards a centre.

事實上，在精神分析時，告白自己，作為引導主體將自己所說的話，朝向移情的抗拒，欺騙的
抗拒、愛的欺騙的抗拒、及攻擊性的抗拒，某件像是封閉的東西發生，它的價值的形式就是這種
迴旋的向中心發展。
，
What I have depicted here by means of the rim comes back on to the plane constituted by the locus of
the Other, from the place where the subject, realizing himself in his speech, is instituted at the level of
the subject who is supposed to know. Any conception of analysis that is articulated—innocently or not,
God only knows—to defining the end of the analysis as identification with the analyst, by that very fact
makes an admission of its limits. Any analysis that one teaches as having to be terminated by
identification with the analyst reveals, by the same token, that its true motive force is elided. There is a
beyond to this identification, and this beyond is defined by the relation and the distance of the objet
petit a to the idealizing capital I of identification.

我在此用邊緣方式所描述的，回到由大它者的軌跡所組成的平面，從應該知道的主體的層次，
主體在言說中體認到自己。任何精神分析的觀念的表達，純真與否，只有天曉得，若是將精神分
析的目的，定義為對於精神分析師的認同，這是劃地自限。我們所教導的任何精神分析，若是必
須以認同於精神分析師為終極目標，同樣顯示出來，真正的動機的力量被視而不見。還有超越這
個認同的力量，這個超越，是由小客體跟認同的理想話的大寫字母的「我」的關係及距離來界定。

I cannot enter into the details of what such an affirmation implies in the structure of practice. I will
refer here to Freud's chapter on Hypnosis and the State of being in Love, which I mentioned earlier. In
this chapter Freud makes an excellent distinction between hypnosis and the state of being in love, even
in its most extreme forms, what he calls Verliebiheit. Here he provides the clearest doctrinal account to
be read anywhere, if only one knows how to read it.

我無法詳述在精神分析實際運作時，這種肯定意味著什麼。我在此參考我早先提到佛洛伊德「論
催眠及戀愛狀態」的章節。在這個章節，佛洛伊德將催眠及戀愛狀態區別得很清楚，即使他所稱
為「神昏顛倒」的極端狀態。在此，他提供清楚的學術描述，讓我們閱讀，只要我們費心去讀它們

There is an essential difference between the object defined as narcissistic, the i (a), and the function of
the a. Things are such that the only view of the schema that Freud gives of hypnosis, gives by the same

7
token the formula of collective fascination, which was an increasing reality at the time when he wrote
that article. He draws this schema exactly as I have represented it for you on the blackboard.

被描述為自戀的理想的自我的客體，與小客體的功用，有一個顯著的不同。事情的狀態，只有從
佛洛伊德給予催眠的基型，我們才能看出集體著迷的公式。當他在寫那篇文章時，集體著迷的現
象越來越真實。他畫出這個基型，如同我在黑板上所繪製的。

In it he designates what he calls the object—in which you must recognize what I call the a—the ego
and the ego ideal. As for the curves, they are made to mark the conjunction of the a with the ego ideal.
In this way Freud gives its status to hypnosis by superposing at the same place the objet a as such
and this signifying mapping that is called the ego ideal. I have given you the elements in order to
understand it, adding that the objet a may be identical with the gaze.

在那裡，他指明他所謂的客體，從那裡，你們一定認出我所謂的小客體、自我、及自我的理想。至
於那些曲線，它們被用來標明小客體與自我的理想的聯接。以這個方式，佛洛伊德疊放小客體，
作為自我的理想的意符，給予它在催眠中的地位。我已經給予你們可供了解的因素，要補充的是
小客體可能跟凝視合而為一。

Well, Freud precisely indicates the nodal point of hypnosis when he formulates that the object is
certainly an element that is difficult to grasp in it, but an incontestable one, namely, the gaze of the
hypnotizer. Remember what I articulated for you about the function of the gaze, of its fundamental
relations to the ink-blot, of the fact that there is already in the world something that looks before there
is a view for it to see, that the ocellus of animal mimicry is indispensable as a presupposition to the fact
that a subject may see and be fascinated, that the fascination of the ink-blot is anterior to the view that
discovers it. You apprehend by the same token the function of the gaze in hypnosis, which may be
fulfilled in fact by a crystal stopper, or anything, so long as it shines.

佛洛伊德準確地指出催眠的節點，當他說明，這個客體在凝視中，確實是一個難於掌握的因素，
但又是無可置疑的因素，換言之，在催眠師的凝視中。請記住我曾經跟你們表達過的有關凝視的
功用，有關凝視跟墨跡的基本關係，有關世界上先有東西觀看，才有東西被觀看的事實，以及
主體觀看，然後著迷，對於墨跡的著迷，早先於墨跡的景象，這些都是跟動物模擬的單眼現象
密不可分。你們可樣可理解到凝視在催眠中的功用，使用水晶球，或任何只要能發亮的東西，都
可以達成催眠的功用。

To define hypnosis as the confusion, at one point, of the ideal signifier in which the subject is mapped
with the a, is the most assured structural definition that has been advanced. Now, as everyone knows, it
was by distinguishing itself from hypnosis that analysis became established. For the fundamental
mainspring of the analytic operation is the maintenance of the distance between the I— identification—

8
and the a.

將催眠定義為理想的意符在某個時刻，主體被小客體所混淆，是曾經被提出的最明確的結構定
義。現在，大家都知道，精神分析學將自己跟催眠區隔開來，自成一家之言。精神分析運作的基
本泉源就是要在自我的認同跟小客體之間，保持一段距離。

In order to give you formulae-reference points, I will say—if the transference is that which separates
demand from the drive, the analyst's desire is that which brings it back. And in this way, it isolates the
a, places it at the greatest possible distance from the I that he, the analyst, is called upon by the subject
to embody. It is from this idealization that the analyst has to fail in order to be the support of the
separating a, in so far as his desire allows him, in an upside-down hypnosis, to embody the hypnotized
patient.

為了給你們公式及符號，容我這樣說，假如移情是分開需求跟欲望驅力的東西，精神分析師的
欲望就是將移情扭轉回來。以這種方式，移情將小客體孤立出來，盡可能將它跟自我的認同保持
距離，因為精神分析師被主體召喚來充當自我的認同。就是因為這個理想，精神分析師必然無法
達成，為了要成為這個分開的小客體的支撐，儘管精神分析師的欲望，在病人神智昏迷的催眠
中，容許他去具體表現被催眠的病人。

This crossing of the plane of identification is possible. Anyone who has lived through the analytic
experience with me to the end of the training analysis knows that what I am saying is true. It is beyond
the function of the a that the curve closes back upon itself at a point where nothing is ever said as to the
outcome of the analysis, that is, after the mapping of the subject in relation to the a, the experience of
the fundamental phantasy becomes the drive. What, then, does he who has passed through the
experience of this opaque relation to the origin, to the drive, become? How can a subject who has
traversed the radical phantasy experience the drive? This is the beyond of analysis, and has never been
approached. Up to now, it has been approachable only at the level of the analyst, in as much as it would
be required of him to have specifically traversed the cycle of the analytic experience in its totality.

跨越這個認同的平面是可能的。你們只要從始至終，參加這個精神分析的經驗，你們就會知道，
我所說的話是事實。就在超越這個小客體的功用，這條曲線自己封閉起來，因為關於精神分析的
結果，我們無法明說，換言之，在我們找出主體跟小客體的關係之後，基本的幻想的經驗會成
為欲望驅力。因此，那些曾經參與精神分析經驗，探索跟起源、跟欲望驅力的那層朦朧關係的人
他們會變得如何呢？這就超越了精神分析的範疇，從來沒有人到達過。直到現在，只有到達精神
分析師的層次，因為他被要求曾經對於精神分析的經驗，完完整整地經歷一遍。

There is only one kind of psycho-analysis, the training analysis—which means a psycho-analysis that
has looped this loop to its end. The loop must be run through several times. There is in effect no other

9
way of accounting for the term durcharbeiten, of the necessity of elaboration, except to conceive
how the loop must be run through more than once. I will not deal with this here because it introduces
new difficulties, and because I cannot say everything, since I am dealing here only with the
fundamentals of psycho-analysis.

只有一種精神分析學，那就是精神分析訓練。那意味著，這種精神分析一直在自己的圈內不斷地
翻筋斗。這個筋斗必須被翻轉好幾次。事實上，我們沒有其它方法來說明「精益求精」這個術語，
除了就是構想如何將筋斗多翻轉幾次。我將不在此處理這個筋斗，因為它那沒有呈現什麼新的困
難。我在此只處理精神分析學的基本原理，無法涉及技巧等其它問題。

The schema that I leave you, as a guide both to experience and to reading, shows you that the
transference operates in the direction of bringing demand back to identification. It is in as much as the
analyst's desire, which remains an x, tends in a direction that is the exact opposite of identification, that
the crossing of the plane of identification is possible, through the mediation of the separation of the
subject in experience.

我留給你們這個基型，可作為經驗及閱讀的引導。它告訴你們，移情運作的方向，是要將需求帶
回到認同。精神分析師的欲望，始終是一個謎團，傾向於朝著認同的正相反方向。所以，透過精
神分析經驗的主體的分裂的媒介，跨越認同的平面是可能的。

The experience of the subject is thus brought back to the plane at which, from the reality of the
unconscious, the drive may be made present.

因此，主體的精神分析經驗被帶回這個平面，讓欲望驅力從無意識的真實界，可能會被顯現出
來。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

10