Logic of Phantasy 39 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 39
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 9
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 9: Wednesday, January 25, 1967

Let us follow Freud. To dream that one is dreaming must be the object of a function of course, for us to be able to say that in every case it designates the imminent approach of reality! Do we not see that for something to be able to notice that it is barricading itself with an error-function in order not to locate reality, that there is here –even though along a path exactly opposite to the assertion of the fact that an idea is transparent to itself – the trace of something which deserves to be followed?

让我们跟随佛洛伊德的说法。梦到我们在作梦，一定是有一个过程的运作的客体，这样我们才能够说，在每一个情形里，它指明现实界的隐现逼近！我们难道不是看到，要让某件东西能够注意到，它正在用一个错误的功用阻碍它自己，为了不要找出现实界的位置，就在这里（即使探讨的途径，跟观念本身是透明的事实的主张，恰恰相反），某件事情的痕迹，难道不是很值得我们去探寻？

And in order to allow you to sense how to understand it, it seems to me that I cannot do better than to go – thanks to the path offered me by a fable which is well known since it is taken from an old Chinese text, one by Choang-tsu (God knows what has been attributed to the poor man!) – and specifically that in connection with this well-known dream, of what he is supposed to have said, in connection with having dreamt … that he dreamt that he himself was a butterfly. He is supposed to have questioned his disciples on the subject of how to distinguish Choang-tsu dreaming that he is a butterfly, from a butterfly who – however awake he may believe himself to be – might dream that he was Choang-tsu. There is no point in telling you that, in Chaong-tsu’s text, this has absolutely not the sense that is normally given to it and that the sentences which follow sufficiently show what is at stake and where this takes us. What is at stake is nothing less than the formation of beings (etres). Namely, of things and of (13) paths that for a long time in very great measure have escaped us. I mean as regards what was exactly thought about it, by those who have left us written traces of it.

为了要让你们能够觉得如何了解它，我觉得，我最好引述一个寓言，这个寓言非常著名，因为它从中国的文本选录出来，那是莊子的寓言，（天晓得，莊子这位可怜的人，是多麽的天生異禀！）特别是关於这个著名的梦，关於他曾经作过的这个梦，他在梦里被认为曾经说过：他梦见他自己是一隻蝴蝶。他被认为应该询问他的门徒，有关这个问题：如何去区别，是莊周梦见他是蝴蝶，还是从蝴蝶的观点，是蝴蝶梦见他是莊周（无论他可能认为，他自己是多麽的清醒！）至於我跟你们说，在莊子的原文，绝对没有我们正常给予它的意义，执迷於后面的文句，我们会越走越远，走火入魔，不过这个並非是重点。岌岌可危的地方，道道地地在於是什麽构成人类的实存感。换句话说，千古义来，我们总是难於捉摸的事情跟探讨的途径，究竟是什麽？我的意思是，关於这个蝴蝶梦，那些先贤刻意留给我们这些书写的痕迹，他们确实的用意是什麽？

But, I am going to allow myself to suppose that this dream was incorrectly reported. Choang-tsu, when he dreamt he was a butterfly, said to himself: “it is only a dream” – which is, I assure you, in complete conformity with his mentality. He does not doubt for an instant being able to overcome this tiny problem of his identity of being Choang-tsu. He says to himself: “it is only a dream” and it is precisely in this that it lacks reality. For, in so far as the I of Choang-tsu depends on the following – which is essential for any condition of the subject – namely, that the object is seen, there is nothing which better allows there to be surmounted the traitorous aspect of this world of vision, in so far as it is supposed to support this sort of collection (however we may call it: world or extension), of which the subject is supposed to be the only support and the only mode of existence.

但是，我现在不妨冒昧地做一个假定，这个梦其实是错误地被报导。当莊子梦见他是一隻蝴蝶时，他自言自语：「那只是一个梦」。我告诉你们，这跟他的精神状态，是完全一致的。没有任何一刻，他能够克服这个小小的问题：他作为莊子的身份是什麽？他自言自语：「那只是一场梦」，确实就是在这里，这个梦缺乏现实感。因为作为莊子的这个「我」，依靠着以下的条件，这对於生命主体的状况是很重要的，换句话说，生命作为一个客体，要被「看见」。视觉的这个世界，具有叛逆的一面，在这个地方，表现得最为淋漓尽致，因为它支持这种的人的聚集（不管你怎麽称呼：人的世界，或人的延伸）。人作为生命的主体，被认为是唯一的支持，唯一的存在模式。

What gives the con-sistency of this subject in so far as he sees, namely, in so far as he only has the geometry of his vision, in so far as he can say to the other: “this is on the right” and “this is on the left” and “this is inside” and “this is outside” what allows him to be situated as I, if not the following – which I already underlined for you at one time – that he is himself a picture in this visible world, that the butterfly is here nothing other than what designates him for his part as stain and as what is original in the stain in the emergence, at the level of the organism, of something which will become vision.

什麽给予这个生命主体的「一贯性」，就他是观看者的角度而言，换句话说，就他拥有他的几何形状的视觉而言，就他能够对另一个人说：「这是在右边」，「这是在左边」，「这是在里面」，及「这是在外面」？什麽使他能够被定位在作为这个「我」？难道不就是以下的状况：他自己是这个景象世界的一个「画面」？蝴蝶道道地就是指明它，就其本身而言，作为一个「污点」，作为人出生在这个世界，处於有机体的层次，原先就是这个污点，它是某件成为景象的东西。这一点，我曾经跟你们强调过一次。

It is indeed in so far as the I itself is a stain on a ground and that what he is going to question about what he sees, is very precisely what he cannot rediscover and what slips away, this origin of the look – how much more tangible and manifest by being articulated for us than the light of the sun – to inaugurate what is of the order of I in the scoptophilic relation.

的确就是这个「我」的本身，是一个在某个场景的「污点」，他将要置疑他所看见的东西，确实就是他无法重新发现，溜滑不定的东西，就是眼光的这个起源。有什麽东西能比太阳的阳光，更能跟我们显示更加具体而明显的东西？跟我们开啟属於色情窥视狂的关系的「我」的层次？

Is it not here that the : I am only dreaming, is only precisely what masks the reality of the look, in so far as it is to be discovered?

这里难道不就是：「我只是正在作梦」，它确实就是遮蔽眼光的真实界的东西，这个东西，难道不是应该被发现出来？

It is indeed to this point that I wanted to bring you today, concerning this reminder of the function of the o-object and its close correlation with the I.

今天，我想要带给你们的，确实就是这一点，要提醒你们这个小客体的功用，以及它跟这个「我」的密切关系。

Nevertheless, is it not true that, whatever maybe the link that the I of all the phantasies supports and indicates – as framing it – we cannot yet grasp, in a multiplicity, moreover, of these -objects, what gives it this privilege in the status of the I, in so far as it posits itself as desire?

可是，这难道不是真实的吗？不管一切幻见里的这个「我」，支持及指示作为架构它的关联是什麽，我们依旧无法从这些小客体的多样性当中，理解到是什麽给它在这个「我」的地位的特权，当它提出它自己，作为一种欲望？

It is indeed what the invocation of repetition alone will allow us to outline, to inscribe in a more precise fashion. If the subject can be inscribed in a certain relation which is a relation of loss with respect to this field which there is drawn the line with which it is assured in repetition, it is because this field has a structure, let us say: what we have already put forward under the term of topology.

确实就是只有憑藉重复的召唤，我们才能够描绘出轮廓，更加精确地铭记。假如生命的主体能够用某种关系来铭记，就重复的召唤所能确定的分界线，这个领域而言，这个关系是一种「损失」的关系，那是因为这个领域有一个结构，我们不妨这样说：我们已经提出「地形学」这个术语。

(14) To assure in a rigorous fashion what is meant by the o-object, with respect to a surface – we have already approached it in this image of this something which can be cut out in certain of these privileged surfaces, so as to let something fall, this object of the fall, which detained us and which we even believed we could image in a little fragment of surface – assuredly this is still, of course, a crude and inadequate representation. Neither the notion of surface nor the notion of the effect of the line and of the cuts is to be rejected. But, of course, it is not with the form of any particular bit – however propitious this image may appear to us, by being linked to what is used in analytic discourse under the term of partial object – that we should content ourselves.

（第十四）为了斩钉截铁地确定，从表面上来，这个小客体是什麽？我们已经接近它，在某些作为特权的表面，能够被切割出来，作为某件东西的形象，这样它才会掉落下来，这个掉落的小客体。它会耽搁我们，我们甚至相信，我们能够在零碎的表面上，将它意象化。当然，这样的意象化，确实是一个粗糙而且简陋的符号再现。应该被拒绝的，既不是表面的观念，也不是线条及切割的效应的观念。但是，不是用任何特别的碎片的形式，不管这个意象对於我们是多麽的吉祥有利，我们精神分析的真理论述，使用部分客体这个术语相关的表达是：我们应该满足於它。

With respect to the surfaces that we have defined, not as something which is to be considered from a spatial angle, but something whose every point, precisely, bears witness to a structure which cannot be excluded from it – I mean at every point – it is in so far as we articulate in it certain effects of cutting that we will come to know something about these vanishing points that we can describe as little o-objects.

关於我们已经下过定义的这些表面，不是作为应该从空间的角度来考虑的某件东西，而是作为它的「每一个点」，确实见证到一个无法被排除在外的结构。我的意思是，在每一个点，我们在里面表达切割的影响。我们会渐渐知道，关於我们能够描述为小客体的这些消失点，会有某件东西出现。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com