Divenire e illusione. La questione del sacro in Freud, Jung e Bion

This work does not constitute an attempt, as an end in itself, to establish a theoretical comparison among Freud, Jung and Bion about the nature and the effectiveness of religious narration. Contrary to the misleading character of the title, a question of clinical nature arises: which space does occupy the mythical apparatus at human disposal, the “sacred”, in the relationship between the analyst and the analysand? From wat perspective can it be watched, stated, touched? First and foremost, the objective will be, through the specific contribution of the above mentioned authors, to understand what we are referring to by the term “sacred”. Our “sacred”, in fact, doesn’t correspond with the mythical religious narration: its truth value is revealed both in the religious and in the scientific narration. By putting on an equal footing science and religion, but without denying their different implications, the narrative insistence can be released as opposed to the truth criteria that still pervade it. In other words, the aim is to decentralize from that “truth” that magnetically lure our narrative productions, and to understand why, given it cannot currently be removed, it presents itself in many different mechanism of complete identification with the narration, whether it is scientific or religious, to such an extent that we are able to state that just when the human beings don’t recognise themselves “in the myth” anymore, they are completely in the myth. It is only by accepting the two implications of this work, that is the acknowledgement of a truth that pierce the narrative and constructive insistences, and, in the meantime, the need for a decentralization as opposed to the truth above, that the real meaning of a dimension clinically expendable, the “sacred”, can be understood.

本研究并非以对弗洛伊德（Freud）、荣格（Jung）与比昂（Bion）三者关于宗教叙事的本质与有效性展开理论比较为核心目的。尽管标题易引发误解，但本研究实则指向一个临床层面的问题：在精神分析师与被分析者的关系中，人类所掌控的神话性建构——即“神圣性”——占据着怎样的位置？我们当从何种视角去审视、阐释与体悟这一神圣性？首要目标是借助上述三位学者的理论贡献，厘清“神圣性”这一术语的具体所指。事实上，我们所言的“神圣性”并非等同于神话化的宗教叙事：其真值既彰显于宗教叙事之中，也同样呈现于科学叙事之内。通过将科学与宗教置于同等地位，同时又不否认二者各自的内涵差异，我们得以挣脱依旧笼罩其上的真理评判准则，释放叙事本身的固有诉求。换言之，本研究的目标在于摆脱那如磁石般牵引着我们叙事创作的“真理”的中心化支配，并厘清：既然当下我们无法彻底摒弃这一真理，它为何会以诸多不同的完全认同机制呈现自身——无论这叙事是科学叙事抑或宗教叙事——乃至我们可以断言，恰恰当人类不再能于“神话”中认出自身之时，他们实则已彻底沉沦于神话之中。唯有接纳本研究的双重内涵——即承认存在一种穿透叙事与建构性固有诉求的真理，同时也意识到需摆脱上述真理的中心化支配——我们方能理解“神圣性”这一临床层面可供探究的维度的真实意涵。