Logic of phantasy 10 JACQUES LACAN

Logic of phantasy 10
JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉岡

SEMINAR 14: THE LOGIC OF FANTASY
The Logic of Fantasy 4
幻见的逻

The question of the way in which the field of interpretation is presumed, the mode in which Freud’s technique offers an opportunity for it, free association in other words, carries us to the heart of this formal orgnisation from which there are outlined the first paths of a mathematical logic, which has a name which, all the same, could not possibly have failed to tickle the ears of all of you, that is called network (reseau) – yes, and it is specified, but it is not my function today to specify and to remind you of what is called a trellis or lattice (an English transposition of the word treillis).

解释的领域所被假定的方式，佛洛伊德的技巧提供一个机会给它一个模式，换句话说，就是自由联想。这个技巧使我们到达这个正式机构的核心。从那里，数学逻辑的前五条途径被描绘出来。那个逻辑有一个名字，铁定会引起你们聆听的興趣，那就是所谓的网络。不错，网络是很明确的，但是我今天的功用，並不是要指明它的细节，及提醒你们所谓的一个框架。

This is what is involved in what Freud, as much in his first outlines of the new psychology, as in the fashion in which, subsequently, he organises the handling of the analytic session as such, this is what he constructs in advance (avant la lettre), as I might say, And when the objection is put to him, at a precise point of the Traumdeutung (as it happens I did not bring today the copy in which I had picked out the page for you), he has to respond to the objection: “of course, with your way of proceeding, at every cross-roads you will indeed have the opportunity of finding a signified which will provide the bridge between two meanings and with this fashion of organising the bridges, you will always go from somewhere to somewhere else”. (It is not for nothing that I had put the little poster taken from Aurus Apollo, as it happens, namely, from an interpretation in the (5) XVIth century of Egyptian hieroglyphs, on a journal which has now disappeared which was called “La Psychanalyse”: the Ear and the Bridge.) This is what is involved in Freud, and every point of convergence of this network or lattice, in which he teaches us to ground the first questioning, is in effect a little bridge.

这就是佛洛伊德所建构的，当他第一次描绘新心理学的轮廓，以及随后他组织分析节数的处理，这就是他预先的建构，我可以这样说。当有人跟他提出异议，对於「梦的解析」的某一特点（很不凑巧，我今天没有带到我预先挑好的几页。）他必须要回答这个异议：「当然，以你的方式前进，在每个十字路口，你确实有机会找到一个意符化的东西，作为两个意义之间的桥粱，然后以这个架构桥梁的方式，你总是从某个地方，到达某一个其它地方。」（凑巧地，我曾经带来这个阿波罗的海报，换句话说，从十六世纪对於埃及象形文字的解释，在一份现在已经停刊的「精神分析学」杂志：耳朵与桥梁）

This is what is involved in Freud, and every point of convergence of this network or lattice, in which he teaches us to ground the first questioning, is in effect a little bridge. This is how it functions and the objection made to him is that in this way everything will explain everything else. In other words, what is fundamentally opposed to psychoanalytic interpretation, is not at all any kind of “scientific critique” (in quotes) – as is imagined from what is ordinarily the only piece of baggage that minds who enter the field of medicine shill have from their year of philosophy, namely, that the scientific is founded on experience!

这是佛洛伊德所讲的内容，在这个「网洛」或「脉络」的每一个汇聚点，他教导我们奠定第一个问题的基础，事实上，就是一座小桥梁。这就是桥梁运作的方式，对於他的异议是，以这种方式，每一件事情将会解释每一件其它事情。换句话说，基本上，它是跟精神分析学的解释恰恰相反，根本不是任何种类的「科学的批判」。我们可以想像，通常来说，这仅是一个泛泛之见，表达的人，从他们读哲学的岁月，进入精神医学的领域，换句话说，他们将科学被建立在经验的基础。

Naturally, they have not opened Claude Bernard, but they still know the title. It is not a scientific objection, it is an objection which goes back to the medieval tradition, when people knew what logic was. It was much more widespread than in our time, despite the means of diffusion that we have.

当然，他们没有读过柯劳德、伯纳的书，但是他们依旧知道，那本书名。这並不是一个科学立场的异议。这个异议可以回溯到中世纪的传统，当人们知道逻辑是什麽。逻辑当时比我们现在这个时代还要盛行，儘关我们拥有方法五花八门。

Things have, in fact, got to the point that, having let slip recently in one of the interviews that I spoke to you about, that I had got my taste for commentary from an old practice of the scholastics, I asked them to take it out. God knows what people would have deduced from it! (laughter).

事实上，事情已经到达这一点，最近我跟你们谈到的那个电视上的对谈，我曾经遗漏，我曾经从一个学术的习惯，培养我对於评论的品味。我要求他们将那个品味拿出来。天晓得，人们会从那个品味推论出什麽玩意儿！（笑声）

Anyway, in short, in the Middle Ages people knew that: Ex falso sequitur quod libet. In other words, that it is characteristic of the false to make everything true. The characteristic of the false, is that one deduces from it in the same step, on the same footing, the false and the true. It does not exclude the true. If it excluded the true, it would be too easy to recognise it! Only in order to see that, it is necessary precisely to have carried out a certain minimal number of exercises in logic, which up to now, as far as I know, do not form part of medical studies, and it is very regrettable! And it is clear that the fashion in which Freud responds, brings us immediately onto the terrain of the structure of the network. He does not express it, of course, in every detail, in the modern specifications that we could give it. It would be interesting moreover to know how he was able and how he was not able to profit from Brentano’s teaching, which he was certainly not unaware of – we have the proof in his university cursus.

无论如何，总之，在中世纪，人们已经知道，「假作真时真亦假」，换句话说，虚假的特色，就是使每一样东西都成为真实。这个虚假的特色，是我们从里面，以相同步伐、相同的立足点，推论出虚假与真实。虚假並没有排除真实。假如虚假排除真实，那要辨认出虚假就太容易了！为了明白这一点，我们所需要做的，就是从事少数几样逻辑的练习。据我所知，直到目前，这些练习並没有形成精神分析医学的内容，这委实是一件遗憾的事。显而易见的，佛洛伊德回答的方式，立即带我们进入「网络」的结构这个平台。当然，他並没有条分缕析地表达它，並没有用我们现代人能够提供的明细分类。而且，耐人寻味的是，他如何能够，以及他如何不能够从布瑞坦诺的教学获的利益。我们从他的大学的论述集找到证据，他确实並不是不知道布瑞坦诺的教学。

The function of the structure of the network, the way in which the lines – of association, precisely – come to overlap one another, to cross-check with one another, to converge at elective points from which they depart again electively, this is what is indicated by Freud. We know enough by all his subsequent work, the unease, we would say, the veritable concern, to be more precise, that he had about this dimension which is indeed properly speaking that of the truth. Because from the point of view of reality, one (6) is at ease! Even to know that perhaps the trauma is only a phantasy. In a certain fashion, a phantasy is even more sure, as I am in the process of showing you; it is structural. But this does not leave Freud – who was just as capable of inventing this as I am, as you can imagine – this does not leave him any more at peace. Where is here, he asks, the criterion of truth? And he would not have written the Wolfman, if it were not on this track, on this particular requirement: is it true or not?

网络的结构的功用，联想的脉络互相重叠，互相交会，汇聚在某些的选择点，也从那里选择性地离开。这就是佛洛伊德的指明。根据他后来的着作，我们一目了然，我们可以说，他对於这个向度，适当的说，这个真理的向度，忐忑不安，準确地说，他尤心忡忡，因为从现实界的观点来看，我们是安之若素！即使我们知道，或许这个創伤仅是一个幻见。以某种方式，一个幻见还更加确定，因为我正在显示给你的过程当中。那是结构性的。但是这並没有使得佛洛伊德，你们想像得到，他构想杜撰的能力，丝毫不逊於我，这个並没有使得佛洛伊德变得更加自在安逸。「真理的标准在哪里？」他问道。他本来不会写下「狼人」这本书，假如不是他困陷在这条途径，困陷在这个特别的要求：这是真实与否？

“Is it true?”
「这是真实的吗？」

He supports this by what is discovered in questioning the fundamental figure manifesto in the repetition dream of the Wolfman. And “is it true?”, is not reduced to knowing whether yes or no and at what age he experienced something which had been reconstructed with the help of this figure of the dream. The essential – it is enough to read Freud in order to perceive it – is to know how the subject, the Wolfman, had been able to verify this scene – to verify it with his whole being. It is through his symptom. Which means – foes not doubt the reality of the original scene – which means: now had he been able to articulate it properly in terms of signifier?

对於「狼人」重复出现的梦中，基本的人物的宣称，他提出置疑然后发现到的东西，他用来支持这一点。「这是真实的吗？」这个问句，並不能仅仅解释为，想要知道是或不是的回答，在几岁他经验到某件事情，他始终要靠着梦中的这个人物的帮忙，才能够被建构得起来。我们暂且先将佛洛伊德的本文搁置一旁，重要的是要知道，「狼人」这个生命的主体，是如何拥有这个能力来验证这个场景，来验证他的整个生命的存在。那就是透过他的病症。那意味着，无可置疑，他敌视原先场景的现实界。那意味着：他始终能够使用意符的术语，适当地表达它吗？

You only have to remind yourselves of the figure of the Roman five, for example, in so far as it is involved and reappears everywhere in the outspread legs of a woman, or the beating of the wings of a butterfly, to know, to comprehend that what is involved is the handling of the signifier.

你们若是想要知道，想要理解，这里所牵涉到的，就是意符的处理，你们所需要做的就是回顾一下在罗马数字标示的第五章的那个人物，因为它牵涉到，而且到处都出现一位女人的脚的伸出，或是一个蝴蝶的翅膀的拍动。

The relation of the truth to the signifier, the detour through which analytic experience rejoins the most modern process of logic, consists precisely in the fact that this relation of the signifier to the truth can short-circuit all the thinking which supports it. And just as a sort of aim is outlined at the horizon of modern logic – one which reduces logic to a correct handling of what is simply writing – in the same way for us, the question of verification, concerning what we have to deal with, passes along the direct line of the operation of the signifier, in so far as on it alone the question of the truth remains suspended.

真理跟意符的关系，是一种迂迴，精神分析经验透过这样的迂迴，重新加入逻辑的现代的过程。这种关系确实由这个事实组成：意符跟真理的关系，能够挡开所有支持它的思想。就像是有某一个目标，在现代逻辑的地平线上被描绘出轮廓。这个目标将逻辑简化成为是在处理写作的内容。我们也是一样，关於我们必需处理的问题，必须亲身验证的问题，通过意符运作的直线，使得真理的问题，始终仅仅被悬置在那里。

It is not easy to put forward a term like that of the true, without making immediately resonate all the echoes in which there come to slip in the most suspect “intuitions” (in inverted commas) and without immediately producing objections, made up from the old experiences that those who engage themselves on this terrain know only too well, so that, like scalded cats, they fear cold water. But who says that because I make you say: “Me, the truth, I speak”, that through this I am allowing the re-entry off the theme of Being, for example? Let us look twice at it, at least in order to know. Let us be content with this very particular knot that I have just made between the truth -! and by this I have not indicated any person, except the one whom I made say these words: “Mek the truth, I speak”. No person, divine (7) or human is involved outside her, namely: the point of origin of the relations between the signifier and the truth.

这委实不是一件容易的事，因为要是提出像真理这样的术语，立刻会引起所有回声的共鸣，在回声中，悄悄溜走的就是最大的嫌疑犯「直觉」，也立刻会引来在这个精神分析的平台，那些从事古老经验，自以为是的人，群起而攻之。就像曾经被烫伤过的猫，他们害怕冷水。但是，只因为我要你们说：「我乃是真理，我在说话！」是谁说，透过这样的言说，我就让生命存在的主题，重新再出现？让我们再一次回顾一下，至少，我们会知道。让我们满足於我刚刚制作的这个特别的结，它处於真理与「负一」之间。这个负一，我並没有指明是任何一个人，除了我要你们说出这些字：「我乃是真理，我在说话！」我没有指明是任何人，无论是神或人类，都置身於真理这个点之外，换句话说：这个点，是意符与真理之间的关系的起源。

雄伯译
springherohsiun@gmail.com