Logic of Phantasy 41 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 41
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 11: Wednesday, February 15, 1967

What the Wiederholungszwang introduces is clearly in contradiction with this primitive law, the one stated in the pleasure principle. And it is as such that Freud presents it to us.

这个「强迫性重复」所介绍的，显而易见，是跟原始的法则互相牴触，也就是跟快乐原则的所陈述的法则互相牴触。佛洛伊德所呈现给我们的就是这样。

Immediately, we who – I suppose – have read this text, can go to its most extreme point, that Freud formulates as what is called the “death drive” (a translation of Todestrieb). Namely, that he cannot stop extending this Zwang – this constraint of repetition – into a field which not alone envelopes that of living manifestation, but overflows it, by including it in the parenthesis of a return to the inanimate. He solicits us then to make there subsist as living – and we really have to put this term in inverted commas – a tendency that extends its law beyond the duration of the living.

立刻，我想，阅读过这个文本的我们，会将它推演到极端，也就是佛洛伊德的说明，作为所谓的「死亡的欲望驱力」。换句话说，他无法抑制自己，不将这个「重复的强制力」，扩大到不仅仅涵盖生命展示的领域，而且瀰漫这个领域，将它纳入退回到无生命的括弧领域。然后，他恳求我们就在那个地方，存活当着是「生命」。我们真的必须将这个术语，用引号涵盖起来，因为这个生之倾向延伸它的法则，超越了我们生活於世间的期限。

Let us look closely at it, because this is what constitutes the objection and the obstacle before which there rebels – as long, of course, as the thing is not understood – there rebels, first of all, a thinking that is used to giving a certain support to the term tendency. A support, precisely, which is the one that I have just evoked in putting the word “living” in quotation marks. Life, then, in this thinking, is no longer “the totality of forces which resist death”, to quote Bichat. It is the totality of forces in which there is signified that death will be for life its rail (rail).

让我们仔细地观看它，因为这是构成它遭受反对跟阻碍的地方。首先，习惯於支持「生之倾向」这个术语的思想，会不明就理地起而反抗。它确实是一种支持，我刚刚召唤的这个支持，当我将「生命」这个字词，用引号涵盖起来。引用生物学家畢查的话来说，在这样的思想里，生命不再是「抗拒死亡的全部力量」。在生命的全部力量那里，死亡是追求生命的一种阻碍。

In truth, this would not take us very far, if it were not a matter of something other than the being of life, but what we can, in a first approach, call its sense. Namely, something that we can read in signs which come from an apparent vital spontaneity – since the subject does not recognize himself in it – but where it is necessary that there should be a subject – since what is in question could not be a simple effect of the … fall-out, (as one might say), of the vital bubble which bursts, leaving the place in the (4) state in which it was previously – but of something which, everywhere we follow it, is formulated not as this simple return, but as a thinking of return, as repetition thinking.

事实上，假如它不是道道地地就是生命的实存，而只是我们刚开始接触时，所谓的它的意义，我们也不用那麽费心来探讨。换句话说，它是从显而易见的生命力的自动自发性，展现出来的符号，我们能够阅读出来的东西，而人作为生命的主体，並没有在符号的东西里面，体现他自己。在那里，我们所需要的是，应该要有一个生命的主体，生命力洋溢飽满，将这个地方，保持在原先的状态（因为受到置疑的部分，不可能仅仅是生命力外泄的影响）。这个生命的主体，无论我们在哪里看到，都应该被解释，不是当着这个单纯的退转到死亡，而是当着是生命力回转的思想，当着是重复生命力的思想。

Everything that Freud grasped on its trace in clinical experience, is – where he is going to seek it, where for him the problem is highlighted, namely, in what he calls “the negative therapeutic reaction”, or again what he tackles at this level as an effect (question mark) of primordial masochism, as that which, in a life, insists on remaining in a certain medium, (let us dot our i’s), let us say of sickness of failure – this is what we ought to grasp as repetition thinking.

佛洛伊德在精神分析诊所的经验，追踪这个问题所理解的一切是，在他将要寻找它的地方，对於他，这个问题被强调的地方，换句话说，在他所谓的「负面的治疗的反应」，或是他在这个层次，处理当着是原始受虐狂的影响（？），当着是在生活中，坚持要停留在某个媒介里，例如，失败的伤痛里。这就是我们应该理解的作为「重复的思想」。

Repetition thinking is a different domain to that of memory.

重复的思想，跟记忆的思想，是一个截然不同的领域。

Memory no doubt also evokes the trace, but by what do we recognise the memory trace? It has precisely as an effect non-repetition.

无可置疑的，记忆也会召唤这个痕迹，但是我们憑藉怎样的方法，来辨认出这是记忆的痕迹呢？记忆的痕迹的效应，确实就在於它不会一再地重复。

(If we seek to determine in experience, the way in which a micro-organism is endowed with memory, we will see it from the fact that it will not react to a stimulus the second time, the way it did the first time. And after all, this will sometimes make us speak about memory, with prudence, with interest, with indecision, at the level of certain inanimate organisations…)

（假如我们设法从精神分析经验，决定一个微小器官，如何禀赋有记忆的能力，我们会从这个事实看出，这个器官对於一个刺激，第二次，不会有跟第一次，有同样的反应。畢竟，我们有时候谈论到记忆时，要谨慎、好奇、不要武断，特别是在某些奄奄一息的机构单位。）

But repetition is something quite different! If we make of repetition in the directive principle of a field, in so far as it is properly subjective, we cannot fail to formulate what unites in material – in the style of a copula – the identical and the different.

但是重复是完全不同的东西！假如我们使用一个领域的强制原则，来解释重复，因为适当地说，重复是主观性的，我们一定会阐述材料的连接，以连系动词的方式：相同与相異。

This imposes on us again, to this end, the use of this unary trait, whose elective function we have recognised in connection with identification.

为了这个目的，我们会再一次被要求使用这个「单一特癥」。它具有选择性的功用，我们谈论到「认同」时，会认得出来。

I will recall what is essential to it in simple terms, having been able to experience that such a simple function appears astonishing in the context of philosophers – or supposed ones, as I recently happen to have had experience of – and that people found obscure, even opaque, this very simple remark that the unary trait plays the role of symbolic reference point, precisely by ruling out that it should be either similarity or difference, which are posited at the principle of differentiation.

我将会用简单的术语回顾一下它的重点，因为我们一直能够经验到，这样一个简单的功用，套在哲学家，或所谓的哲学家的情境，似乎会令人大吃一惊。因为我最近恰巧曾经有过这样的经验，人们发现这个简单的词语，语义模糊，甚至晦涩难懂。「单一的特癥」在符号的指称点，扮演的角色，确实就是排除「若非相同，就是有差異」的二者选一律，这个定律被提出当着是区别差異的法则。

I already, here, sufficiently underlined that the use of the One – which is this One that I distinguish from the unifying-One, because of being the countable-One – is to be able to function, to designate as so much “One” such heteroclite objects as a thought, a veil or another object that is here within our reach – and since I enumerated three, to count that, three. Namely, to hold as null even their most extreme difference of a nature in instauring their differentiation from something else.

在此，我已经充分地强调，这个「一」的用途。我区别这个「一」，跟「统一的一」有所不同，因为作为可以数的「一」，应该能够发挥功用，将像一个思想、一个面纱、或另外一个我们掌握得到的客体，这样的多变万化的客体，指明为一个「一」。既然我列举了三个，那我就数到三。换句话说，当我们建立它们彼此之间的差異时，我们将它们本质最根本的差異，认为是零。

Here is what gives us the function of number and everything that is instaured upon the operation of recurrence, whose proof, as you know, is based on this unique (5) module: that everything having been proved to be true … for n … that what … It being proved as true that what is true for n + 1 is so for (, it is enough for us to know what is involved so that n = 1, for the truth of a theorem to be assured. This grounds a being of truth which is entirely slippery. This sort of truth is, as I might say, the shadow of the number, it remains without grasp on any real.

这就是我们对於数字的功用的理解，每一样根据重复发生的演算，你们知道，它的证据，就是基於这个独特的模式：如果每一样东西被证明是真实，那就可以演算到无穷，都会被证明是真实，无穷次加一，也会是真实。（我们只要知道，这个无穷次加一，会牵涉到的东西，就足够成立一个定理的真理。）这使得真理的存在的基础，完全溜滑不定。我不妨这样说，这种真理，是数字的阴影，它始终没有掌控到任何的真实界。

But if we descend, as I might say, into time, which is … what is demanded of you today, in order to take up the identificatory schema of alienation and see how it functions: we will remark that the basic One of the operation of recurrence is not already there, that it is only instaured from repetition itself.

但是我不妨这样说，假如我们进入时间的领域，你们今天也有时间的压力，为了从事「疏离」这个辨识的基模，然后看看它是如何的运作：我们将会说，一再发生的运作的这个基本的「一」，不是原先已经在那里，它只是从重复的本身，被建立起来。

Let us take things up again. We do not have to remark here that repetition could not, dynamically, be deduced from the pleasure principle. We are only doing it to make you sense the relief of what is in question. Namely, that the maintenance of the least tension, as pleasure principle, in no way implies repetition.

让我们再一次从事这个问题。在此，我们並不需要说，重复不能够从快乐原则，意气风发地推论出来。
我们在此这样推论，只是为了使您们感觉到，我们所置疑的东西，是多麽令人欣慰。换句话说，作为快乐原则，只是维持在宁静安详的状态，根本就没有涵盖到「重复」的发生。

On the contrary, the rediscovery of a pleasure situation in its sameness can only be the source of operations that are always more costly, than simply following the angle of the least tension. By following it like an isothermic line, if I can express myself in this way, it will finish up indeed by leading, from pleasure situation to pleasure situation, to the desired maintenance of the least tension. If it implies some buckling or some return, this can only be along the path, as I might say, of an external structure, which is not at all unthinkable, since I evoked earlier the existence of an isothermic line. It is not at all in this way and from outside that the existence of the Zwang is implicated in the Freudian Wiederholung, in repetition.

相反地，快乐情境一模一样的重新再现，比起仅仅过着宁静安详的生活的角度，有时候只是代价更加昂贵的运作的来源。我们就像等温线一样地平稳生活，假如我能这样地表达我自己，那结果将会是，从一个快乐的情境，到另一个快乐的情境，最后到达我们所渴望的宁静安详的维护。假如它意味着某种的退却，或某种的退转，那仅能够是从一个外在结构的途径，我不妨这样说。那根本是匪夷所思，因为我早先就用一个等温线的存在比喻过。佛洛伊德所谓的「重复」，牵涉到的强制性的存在，根本就不是以这种方式，从外面切入。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com