相對於意識傳統為了滿足知識全知的條件，將身體的隱而未顯視為有缺陷的模糊，現象學重回日常生活世界裡的原初知覺經驗領域，身體作為缺席的模糊不再是認知的障礙，反倒作為潛在的背景是認知得以成立的必要條件。梅洛龐蒂強調完全還原的不可能，將理論重新寓居於身體，身體與世界交錯糾結無法分別，無法外於身體一語道破，只能夠不斷的描述身體與世界的關聯，使得不斷說明成為模糊效能的延續以堆疊出逸離的身體。 為了追求身體最大程度的逸離，本文還必須繼續借道拉崗精神分析，潛意識作為超出主體言說意圖，指向不可見、自我與他人外的他者，連串的取代系列圍繞在缺席旁作離心的循環。於是拉崗認定部分的身體作為象徵的身體才能發揮效能，始終處於異化的過程，但是並不是迷惑在身體的諸種表象中，或者以斷裂確保真實的身體，而是對身體的想像成為身體的不斷延續，身體的諸種表象就是身體的實質存在，使得回歸身體也是逸離身體。 / On contrary to the western philosophical tradition , to set consciousness as priority, builds transparent knowledge. It regard the ambiguity character of body as fault. Phenomenology summons us to go back to primary field of lifeworld. Body is no more the barrier of cognition, instead body become the potential background as necessary condition of cognition. Merleau-Ponty stresses the impossibility of complete reduction. The consciousness inhabit in body in motion. Body is interwined with world and hard to divide. We can’t explore body as objective observer as if we were outside the world. What we can do is to descript the relationship between body and world. Make the descriptions to become the parts of invisible body. In order to catch the character of body’s exceed, we need to have aid of Lacan’s psychoanalysis. Lacan develop that unconsciousness is like the structure of language. It designates the subjectivity speaks beyond what he intend. People desire the lost Other outside the self and other as the third term, instead people used to series of substitutes around the absence as decentered circulation. Lacan identify people is in process of alienation, even in the initial stage. The real body which is fragmented could have effects as symbol. It’s not what people confused with imaginary images, but what people imagine is to continune body. The different body images is body’s substantial existence.

國立政治大學研究所碩士論文提要 研究所別： 英國語文研究所 論文名稱： 閱讀溫特森«銘刻在身»的爽 指導教授： 劉建基教授 研究生： 張惠慈 論文提要內容： （共一冊，約 31500 字，分五章） 本研究關於溫特森的《銘刻在身》旨在探究在閱讀此文本過程中，不同程度及不同形式的爽(jouissance)。此研究將著重於三方面：其一，追求愛情的爽；其二，在幻想中永恆的爽；其三，閱讀文本《銘刻於身》的爽。本論文將分五個章節。 我在第一章的前半部簡介溫特森及她的小說，在後半部，描繪拉岡心理學中三個限界（幻真界[the real]，想像界[the imaginary]，及象徵界[the symbolic]），及此三界與爽的交互作用。這三個限界及爽，將是本研究的理論基石。 第二章的討論旨在解釋，為何敘述者著迷於不斷陷入愛情，及為何露伊絲在小說結尾莫名其妙的消失了。乍看之下，敘述者對露伊絲的愛相當矛盾：敘述者對露伊絲宣稱其無窮的愛，卻又刻意地悄悄的遠離了她。然而事實上，敘述者的矛盾行為堪稱合理：因為愛與失去是共生的。在浪漫愛情故事裡，一段介於愛的主體(the loving subject)及被愛客體(the loved object)之間的距離是必要的。表面上，愛的主體（敘述者）的追求過程裡看來痛苦，而實際上他正無意識的，享受著對被愛客體無限的追求時的爽。在這迷戀他者的過程中，主體實際上是自我迷戀(narcissism)，而在這自我迷戀的過程中，主體將其自我理想(an ego-ideal)投射在被愛客體上，並美化被愛客體成為一理想的自我(an ideal ego)。 在第三章，我將對敘述者迷戀愛情的現象做更深入的探討：到底敘述者打算由露伊絲的完美形象中挖掘什麼，以及為何敘述者得與一個理想戀人，住在一個理想愛情的幻象之中？我發掘出其中最主要的原因來自於，主體懼怕被去勢及懼怕象徵界中的無能（例如婚姻、老去、死亡）。主體具有一個原生的欲望：期待完滿及永恆（此欲望是期待回歸幻象界以及獲得爽），然而在現實世界（象徵界）的短缺及壓迫之下，回歸的可能被榨乾。幻象(fantasy)於是成為主體（敘述者）的護欄，它一方面讓主體相信自己是全能，另一方面它掩蔽事實，讓主體忘卻自身的不完整和無能為力。 在第四章，我跳出單單在文本內容中的討論，進而探討文本與讀者之間的關係；本討論的立論基礎為羅蘭巴特的書寫式文本(writerly text)。在文本╱讀者及露伊絲╱敘述者之間，有一類似的有趣現象：文本之於讀者正如同露伊絲之於敘述者。在這兩個情況當中同時都有一被動的客體(the desired or probed object)勾引探索中的主體(the probing subject)，然後再由主體的追求中脫逃而去。閱讀《銘刻於身》，表面上痛苦萬分，而實際上卻令人陶醉：因為閱讀的爽正源自於，作者刻意設計的不確定因素(uncertain elements)。這些不確定因素，一方面玩弄讀者，一方面也在文本上形成一未填滿的空間，其特徵就是不斷的衍生(endless generation)－－讀者可以參與創造各式各類的可能性，而意義的系統將不斷延伸。一個單一的文本，在此不斷延伸的系統下，便成了多重文本，而閱讀此類書寫式文本之樂趣，就在於讀者不得不參與創造意義的過程。 最後我在第五章的結論部份，總結了愛與閱讀的爽具有相同的條件與模式：在追求的主體（讀者與愛的主體）與被追求的客體（文本及被愛客體）之間，空間與距離是不可避免的要素，因為隱藏在人體內的爽本身就是一個矛盾體。 Chapter One Introduction Chapter Two The Jouissance of Pursuing Love Chapter Three The Jouissance of Being Immortal in Fantasy Chapter Four The Bliss of Reading Written on the Body: A Writerly Text with Jouissance Chapter Five Coda / Abstract In this study of Jeanette Winterson’s Written on the Body I would like to explore jouissance in different forms and levels in the process of reading this novel. The emphasis will be laid upon three aspects: first, the jouissance of pursuing love; secondly, the jouissance of being immortal in fantasy; and thirdly, the jouissance of reading this novel. The thesis is divided into five parts. In the first chapter, the beginning section is devoted to a general introduction of Jeanette Winterson and her novels; in the ensuing section, I will picture the interrelationships between the three registers—the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic—and jouissance in Lacanian psychoanalysis, which will be adopted as the interpretative model to account for the theme of jouissance in the whole thesis. In the second chapter, I will stress on the narrator’s exalted love toward Louise and the construction of his/her ego. On the surface, it is odd that the narrator’s sublime love for Louise contradicts his/her decision—to leave Louise; however this paradox is reasonable, because love and loss is in fact symbiosis. A distance between the loving subject and the loved object is necessary in the case of romantic love; though painful, the loving subject enjoys itself in the act of endless pursuit for the loved object, which is actually an ideal ego of the subject’s self. The paradox of love in company with suffering explains the narrator’s addiction in love and the disappearance of Louise. In the third chapter, my interest is getting deeper: what does the narrator want to grub out of the ideal image of Louise, and why does the narrator have to live in the fantasy of ideal love and to be with an ideal lover? The principal cause that I will explore is the fear of being castrated and of the impotency of the symbolic. The subject has an essential desire to be integral and immortal (which is the concept of the real and is allied to jouissance), but there are forces from the reality (or the symbolic) to drain this desire. Therefore, fantasy becomes a protective talisman for the narrator (as well as for every subject) to forget its fragmentation and inability. In the fourth chapter, the interrelation between the text and the reader is the dominant consideration, and Roland Barthes’ theory of writerly text that engenders bliss (jouissance) will be the critical base. There is an interesting formula between the text/the reader and Louise/the narrator. The text for the reader is similar to Louise for the narrator: in both situations, the desired one seduces and slides from the probing other. Reading Written on the Body on the surface is painful and irritating; in a sense, the act of reading is ecstatic. The origin of the bliss of reading is the uncertain elements intentionally created by the author. The unfilled space in the text that entertains readers is characterized by its feature of endless generation—various possibilities are created, and the network of meanings extends. Therefore, to conclude the whole scheme of love and reading in the fifth chapter, I will point out that a space or a distance between the pursuing subject (the reader or the loving subject) and the pursued object (the text of the loved object) is inevitable because jouissance inherent in the human body is in its essence paradoxical.

當代哲學家紀傑克以他對於政治與文化現象的拉岡式解讀而聞名，但他哲學中的核心母題是什麼？對紀傑克而言，哲學不是使人「安然棲身」的論述，而是跟陌生感與他異性更緊密相關。所以，在紀傑克的眼中，哲學家的工作，不在於提供具體的解決方案，而是在於「新問題的創造」，重塑爭論的框架本身。 　　這篇研究中，筆者使用「系統與他者」這組概念，來彰顯紀傑克的兩大核心母題，其一，便是在有限性的範圍之內主張的自由，其二，則是他對新穎與變化的追索。「他者」使得系統能夠不斷重新定向，並向根本的變化保持開放。 　　「脫節狀態」是紀傑克用以描述主體之基本自由的概念。主體活動不被自然或文化的任一方決定；於是，所有主體所作的系統整合，都是一種與他者建立暫態平衡的嘗試，而所有用以整合的意指活動，都是一種對於他異性的回應，一種安身立命的奠基姿態。 　　簡言之，所謂「象徵界與實在界的不協調性」，在紀傑克的術語中不是消極的意涵，而是積極的意涵：它使得意義建構得以開始，並且是人類自由的根源。透過「系統」與「他者」的互動，思想總是有能力重新定向，藉此維持其鮮活與彈性，而這正是紀傑克式主體在現今政治情境中所致力實現的。 / Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Žižek is well-known for his Lacanian reading on political and cultural phenomena, but what is the central motif of his philosophy? For Žižek, philosophy is not some discourse to make people feel “being at home”, but rather something more related to foreignness and otherness. In Žižek’s eyes, What a philosopher really does is not providing substantial solutions, but rather “inventing new problems”, reshaping the framework of argumentation itself. 　　In this thesis, ”System and other” is the term I introduce to thematize two central motifs in Žižek’s philosophy: the first motif is his tireless assertion of freedom within the realm of finitude, and the second one is his relentless seeking for innovations and changes. “Other” is what enables the system to continuously re-orientate itself, and keep the system open to fundamental changes. 　　Žižek uses “Out-of-jointedness” to describe the fundamental freedom of the subject, neither nature nor culture can determine the subject. Every system organized by the subject is an attempt to create a transient balance with the other, and every totalizing signification is s a response to the otherness, the founding gesture of situating the subject itself into a meaningful context. 　　To sum up, Žižek does not use “Inconsistency between the Symbolic and the Real” as a negative term, but rather a positive term, it is the very starting point of meaning construction, and the ground for human freedom. Through the interaction between ”system and other”, the thought is always ready for re-orientation, therefore the thought is kept alive and flexible, and this is exactly what a Žižekian subject wants to accomplish in the present political situations.