Logic of Phantasy 61 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 61
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

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

Seminar 14: Wednesday 8 March 1967

I suppose that the people who chose this term in the English literature, to designate acting-out, knew what they meant. In any case, it fits perfectly: I act out something, because this was read, translated, articulated, signified inadequately to me, or incorrectly.

我认为，在英国文学选用这个术语的人，他们指明「觉醒行动」时，他们知道自己的意思。无论如何，它形容得维妙维肖：我觉醒地採取行动，因为这个我所阅读、所翻译、所表达、所得到的啟示，无论它是对或错，充分与否。

I would add that if you happen to have the adventure that I imaged earlier, namely, that someone wants to give you a better presence of Racine, it is not a very good starting point, it will probably be as bad as your way of reading. In any case this will start already from a certain instability. There is already something inexact, even deadened, in the acting-out introduced in such a sequence.

我再补充一下，假如你刚好也从事我早先所构想的探讨，换句话说，某个人想要讲述拉辛的作品，这不是一个很好的出发点，将作品印证到读者身上，並不是很好的阅读方式。无论如何，这样一开始就会处於不稳定状态。要将「觉醒的行动」介绍到这样的情境，会有某件不稳定，甚至是僵局的东西存在。

This is the remark around which I intend to approach what I am simply putting in question today.

我打算使用这个谈论，来接近我今天所要置疑的东西。
To speak about the logic of the phantasy, it is indispensable to have at least some idea of where the
psychoanalytic act is situated. This is what is going to force us to take a little step backwards.

谈到幻见的逻辑，无可免除地至少要有些概念，知道精神分析学的行动，定位在哪里。这使得我们不得不退后一步来观察。

One can in effect remark that it goes without saying – but it goes a lot better by saying it – that the psychoanalytic act is not a sexual act. It is even not at all possible to make them interfere. It is quite the contrary.

实际上我们能够说，这个无庸置疑，但是我们最好还是这样说：精神分析学的行动，並不是一个性爱的行动。根本就不可能让性爱的行动介入。那完全是背道而驰。

But to say the contrary, does not mean contradictory, since we are doing logic! And to make you sense it I have only to evoke the analytic couch. It is all the same there for some reason!

但是说它背道而驰，並不意味着，它矛盾牴触，既然我们买弄的是逻辑！为了让你们感觉到它，我所必需做的，就是引用精神分析个案对象躺的沙发椅。为了某种理由，那都是大同小異。

In the topological order, there is something I have noticed, but it is really a problem: that the myths make very little of it. And, nevertheless, the bed is something that has to do with the sexual act.

从地形学的层次来说，我曾经注意到有某件事情，但这确实是一个问题：神话並不很看重床。可是，床必然是个性的行为有关联。

The bed, is not simply what Aristotle speaks to us about in order, I remind you, to designate in this connection the difference between physis and techne. And to presentify for us a wooden bed as if, from one minute to the next, it might start budding again! I searched carefully in Aristotle: there is no trace of the bed (11) considered as … I do not know, what I would call, in my language – and which is not too far from that of Aristotle – the locus of the Other!

我提醒你们，床不仅仅是亚里斯多德跟我们提到的，为了指明「自然」与「技艺」之间的差異。我们若是要具体呈现一个木造的床，好像过不了多久，它可能就会萌芽的样子！我仔细翻阅亚里斯多德，根本没有一个地方提到床被认为大它者的轨迹！我不知道，我用我的精神分析的术语来诠释，会不会离亚里斯多德的原意太远。

He, for his part, also had a certain sense of the topos, when what was in question was the order of nature. It is very curious! Having spoken, in book eta (if I remember correctly) of the Metaphysics (but I would not swear it), about this bed, so finely and so well, he never considers it as a topos of the sexual act.
One says “un enfant du premier lit” (a child of the first marriage). It is all the same also to be taken literally. Words are not said, are not connected up, at random.

就他而言，他也有某些这种「地形学」的感觉，当自然的秩序在这里被置疑到。这真是耐人寻味的！在「形上学」那本书里，他曾经提到过床，（假如我记得没有错，但是我不敢保证）。这个床是如此精致舒适，他却从来没有将它当着是性的行动的一种「地形」。有人说过：床是首次婚姻的产物。我们应该将这句话，按照字面解释。文字畢竟不是随便说出，随便联想的。

In certain conditions, the fact of entering into the arena of the bed can, perhaps, qualify an act as having a certain relation with the sexual act (Cf. the ruelles of the Precieuses). So then … the analytic bed signifies something: an arena which is not without a certain relation to the sexual act, which is a contrary relation properly speaking, namely, that it cannot in any way become it. It nevertheless remains that it is a bed and that this introduces the sexual in the form of an empty field or an empty set, as has been said somewhere.

在某些的情况，进入床的鬥技场，可能，使一个行动有资格拥有跟性的行动，产生某种关系。（请参考the ruelles of the Precieuses）。因此，精神分析师的床象征着某件东西：跟性的行动不无关系的鬥技场，严格来说，这种关系是背道而驰的，无论如何，它也无法真成事实。可是，照某个地方的说法，它仍旧是一个床，它以一个空洞的场域，或空洞的背景，介绍性的行动。

And then, if you refer to my little structural schema, since it is there that we have already placed the sexual Other, it is there also that the analytic act, in any case, has no business. There remains this (1) and this (2): the capital O and the small o and their relation … I mean the other capital O with regard to which, after all, I would like from time to time to be able to elide the heavy things, but in fact, for those who are deaf, who have not heard me yet, it is indeed a matter of this field of the Other, not in so far as it is reduplicated, but that it is reduplicated in such a way, that, precisely, there is within it a question of an Other qua field of the sexual act. And then, that this Other, here, which seems indeed not to be able to-do-without, and which is this field of the Other of alienation – this field of the Other which introduces us to the Other of the O barred, which is also the field of the Other in which the truth is presented for us, but in this broken, fragmentary, bitty fashion which constitutes it properly speaking as intrusion into knowledge.

因此，假如你提到我这个小小的结构基模，因为我们已经将性爱的大它者，放置在那里，无论如何，它跟精神分析的行动，扯不上关系。剩下的就是这个「第一点」及这个「第二点」：大写字母O代表大它者，小客体，及它们的关系。我的意思是，这个大它者O，畢竟，有时候我很想要逃避跟它有关的沉重的事情。但事实上，对於那些充耳不听的人，对於那些从未听过我讲演的人，那确实是大它者的场域的事情，不是因为它一再重复，而且它重复的方式，确实是一个大它者作为性的行动的场域的问题。这个大它者，似乎不能够免除不用。这就是疏离的大它者的这个场域。这个大它者介绍我们进入这个被禁制的大它者。这也是真理呈现在我们面前的大它者的场域，但是方式却是支零破碎。严格来说，它被以这种方式形成，闯入知识的真实界。

Before daring even to pose the questions about the following: where is the psychoanalyst, we have to give a reminder of what is in question, what the small o segment designates here.

在冒然提出有关下面的问题：精神分析师的位置在哪里？我们必须先提醒一下，所被置疑的是，小客体的部分指明什麽？

You have, I think, already sensed that it is quite a clear that there is a relation between this small o which is here (2) and this capital O which is there (1), that they even have the same function with respect to two different things. The small o, a closed form, a form given at the beginning of analytic experience, in which the subject presents himself, a production of his history and we will say even more, the refuse of this history, a form which is the one that I designate under the name of the little o-object has the same relation with the O of the sexual Other, as this O of truth – from the field of intrusion of this something which limps, which sins in the subject, under the name of symptom – the same relation as this small o with what? With the whole.

我认为，你已经感觉到，显而易见的，在这里的这个小客体，跟这个大写字母O的大它者之间，有一层关系。这两样东西虽然不同，功用却是相同、小客体是一个封闭的形式，在精神分析经验的开始时，就被给予的一个形式。生命的主体以小客体的形式呈现自己，是他自己的历史的产物，说得过分些，是他自己历史的渣滓。我使用小客体的名义所指明的内容，跟性爱大它者，作为是真理的这个大它者，拥有相同的关系。从这个某件东西的闯入的场域，蹒跚前进，使生命的主体以病癥的名义，充满罪恶感。这是小客体跟什麽的相同功用？跟整体的关系。

Every cut made in this field – and this does not mean that the analyst who goes about it is to be identified to this field of the Other, as one would obviously, however little, be tempted to do (the crude analogies between the analyst and the father, for example, since, moreover, it might also be here that there functions this measure destined to determine all the relations of the whole, and specifically those of the small o, with the field of the sexual O. Let us not rush, thank you, into such precipitous formulae, especially since they are false.)

每一道切割在这个场域被造成，这並不意味着，从事分析它的精神分析师，就应该跟大它者的这个领域认同一致。虽然我们显然难免会被诱使这样做。（例如，精神分析师跟父亲之间，有粗略的类同。总是会有一些地方，有些作风的功用，充当整体的关系，明确地说，小客体的那些场域，跟性的大它者的这个场域的关系。让我们不要匆促地就套用这样的轻率的公式，特别是因为它们是假的公式）。

This does not prevent the closest relation existing between the field of the capital O of veracious
intervention and the fashion in which the subject comes to presentify the small o__, were iconly (as you have just seen appearing in the example borrowed from Ernst Kris) by way of protest to an premature cut. There is only one problem: it is, precisely, that this is not what the intervention of Kris brought about. It had an effect in this field, in so far as in analysis – I said: in analysis – it is a desexualised field. I mean that in the subjective economy, it is on the de-sexualisation of the field proper to the sexual act that there depends the economy, the reverberations then, that the different sectors of the field are going to have on one another.

这並无碍於有最密切的关系存在於，大写字母O代表的大它者真诚地介入，与小客体具体代表生命主体，藉由抗议早熟的切割的方式之间。（你们刚刚看见这种关系出现在欧斯特、克里斯的例子里）。问题只有一个：这並不是精神分析师克里斯的介入导致的结果。这个介入在这个领域有一个影响，如我所说，在精神分析的领域，那是一个除去性的行动的领域。我的意思是，从生命主体的经济学来说，在作为性的行动的本体领域，被除去性的行动，会有反馈的作用。这个领域的各个不同地区会互相激荡。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com
(886) 0933481945