Logic of Phantasy 83 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 83
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 18
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 18: Wednesday, April 26, 1967

Therefore, I would say that these people are using references to the embarrassment of the borrower of the cauldron, only cover over on the part of analysts a triple refusal to recognise what precisely is in operation. In the first place, that they did not borrow this cauldron, they deny this, did…not (ne…pas) and they imagine that effectively they have borrowed it. In the second place, it seems that they want to (12) forget as long as they can, that, as they nevertheless know very well, there is a hole in this cauldron and that to promise to give it back intact is something quite risky.

因此，我会说，这些人正在使用一些指称，令锅子的借用者自叹弗如。就精神分析师而言，只是掩饰三个层次的拒绝承认运作的确实真相。第一层次，他们没有借用锅子，他们否认这个事实，他们想像，他们实际上没有借用。第二层次，他们似乎儘可能忘记，可是他们又清楚地知道，这个锅子有个破洞，承诺保持原样归还，会有赔偿的危险。

It is only starting from there that one can notice what is involved at the level of phenomena which are these truth phenomena, that I tried to pinpoint in the formula: “Me, the truth, I speak”.

只是从这里开始，我们才能够看出，现象的层次会牵涉到什麽。这些真理的现象，我设法用这个公式表达：「我是真理，我在说话！」

This is true, whatever the psychoanalysts think of it and even if they want to think something that does not force them to close their ears to the words of truth.

这是事实，无论精神分析师如何看待它。即使他们想要认为，並没有什麽东西，强迫他们演耳不听真理的话语。

Here, what does the very element of psychoanalytic theory teach us, if not that to accede to the sexual act is to accede to a jouissance that is guilt, even and especially if it is innocent! Full jouissance, that of the king of Thebes, the saviour of the people, the one who has taken up the fallen sceptre people do not know how and without a line of descent. Why? It has been forgotten – in short, this jouissance which covers over what?

精神分析学理论的这些因素，教导我们的难道不就是，同意这个性的行动，等於就是同意一个带有罪惡感的「欢爽」，即使是纯真无邪的欢爽。百分之百的欢爽，如西伯城邦的国王伊底普斯，受到人民的感恩热爱，他接受王位的权杖时，人民並不知道他的血脉系谱。为什麽？这个问题被人忽略，总之，这个欢爽掩盖了什麽？

Rottenness, what finally explodes in the plague. Yes, King Oedipus for his part, realised the sexual act. The king reigned. We assure ourselves, moreover, it is a myth. It is a myth, like almost all the other myths of Greek mythology. There are other ways of realising the sexual act. In general they find their sanction in hell. That of Oedipus is the most “human”, as we say today, namely, using a term of which there is no exact equivalent in Greek, where nevertheless, humanism finds its wardrobe.

腐烂，在瘟疫当中会蔓延開来。是的，就伊底普斯国王本身而言，他实现这个性的行为。国王统治一切。而且，我们也告诉自己说，这是一个神话，就像所有其它的希腊神话差不多。实现性的行为的方式多得很。一般说起来，他们都会淪落到地狱里。伊底普斯的神话最具有「人性」的意涵，如我们今天所说，换句话说，我们正在使用一个术语，在希腊文里，我们找不确实的相等语。可是在那里，文本主义的衣柜，可是琳琅满目。

What ocean of feminine jouissance, I ask you, was necessary for the ship of Oedipus to float without sinking?

我问你们，我们需要怎样的女性欢爽的汪洋，才能够不让伊底普斯的船隻沉没下去？

Until the plague finally shows what the sea of his happiness consisted in. This last sentence may appear enigmatic to you. The fact is that, in effect, there is to be respected here the enigmatic character that a certain knowledge effect, should properly preserve, which is the one that concerns the span that yi here mark my theory the hole.

直到瘟疫最后显示，他的快乐的大海位置在哪里。这个最后的句子，你们听起来，可能是一个谜团。事实上，某种知识造成的这个谜团一般的特性，应该受到尊敬，因为它适当地保存。这个谜团一般的特性，跟标示我的理论的破洞有关。

Moreover, there is no possible entry into this field without unravelling the enigma. And this, as you know, is what the Oedipus myth designates. Without the solution that this knowledge – which only images that the enigma, and whether it is or not reasoned – that this knowledge, I say, is intolerable for the truth. For the Sphinx is what presents itself every time the truth is in question. The truth throws itself into the abyss when Oedipus resolves the enigma.

而且，一但我们进入这个领域，这个谜团可能就会真相大白。如你们所知，这就是伊底普斯的神话的意涵所在。假如没有这个知识提供的解答，这个谜团，无论合理不合理，这个知识，对於真理而言，是令人难於承受的。每当真理受到置疑时，人面狮身的司芬克斯代表它自己的谜团。真理自己纵身跳入深渊，当伊底普斯解答这个谜团。

Which meant that he shows there, properly, the sort of superiority, of hubris as he said, that the truth cannot tolerate.

这意味着，他给我们显示，适当地是，就是真理无法容忍他沾沾自负优越的地位，如他自己说的，那是一种「傲慢」。

What does that mean? That means jouissance in so far as it is at the source of truth. That means what is
articulated at the locus of the Other, so that jouissance – which is is a matter of knowing there where it is – posits itself as questioning in the name of truth.

那是什麽意思？那意味着，「欢爽」是位於真理的根源。那意味着，大它者的轨迹所表达的内涵，「欢爽」的问题是要知道，自己在哪里，它呈现它自己，以真理的名义在置疑。

And it is necessary that it should be in this place in order to question. I mean at the locus of the Other. For one does not question from any other place. And this indicates to you that this locus that I introduced as the locus in which there is inscribed the discourse of truth is certainly not, whatever one or other person may have given to understand, this sort of locus that the Stoics called incorporeal. I would have to say what is involved in it, namely, precisely, that it is the body. It is (13) not there that I have yet to advance today, in any case.

欢爽应该需要在这个地方出现，这样它才能置疑，我是说出现在大它者的轨迹。因为我们並不从任何其它地方开始置疑。这给你们的指示是，我所介绍的这个轨迹，铭记在真理的论述里的轨迹，不管其它的人们怎麽认为，就是禁欲学派所谓的超越肉身的这种轨迹。我将必须说出那里面会牵涉到什麽，换句话说，那就是我们的身体是肉身之驱。不过，我今天尚要提出的内容，还不是在那里。

Oedipus knew something about what was posed him as a question, and its form ought indeed, to retain or perspicacity, in our turn. Does not the simplistic future of the response deceive us for centuries with its four feet, its two legs and then the stick of the old man which is added at the end? Is there not in these ciphers something different whose formula we will better find by following what the function of the little o-object is going to indicate to us?

伊底普斯知道，他自己所面临的问题是什麽。要理解这样的问题的形式，需要颖悟的能力，伦到我们自己的时候也是一样。这个过於简单的答案，几世纪以来不一直迷惑着我们？有个动物早上四隻脚，下午两隻脚，晚上三隻脚，答案是「人」，人在婴儿时代四脚爬行，成年时两脚行走，老年时持拐杖，如同三隻脚。这种解释，跟我们找到的小客体的功用的这个公式，难道不是具有異曲同功之妙？

Knowledge is thus necessary at the establishment of the sexual act. And this is what the Oedipus myth says.

因此，建立性的行动时，知识是需要的。这就是伊底普斯神话的内涵。

Judge a little then what Jocasta had to deploy as a power of dissimulation, since on the paths of the encounter, of the tuche, which is the one that one has only once in one’s life, since it is the only one that can lead him to happiness, since Oedipus was able not to know the truth earlier. For after all, all the years that his happiness lasted, whether he was making love in the evening in bed or during the day, did Oedipus never, never have , never to evoke this bizarre scuffle which happened at the cross-roads with this old man who died there?

然后，你们稍微判断一下，乔卡斯达必须运用怎样的力量作为掩饰，因为在遭遇或邂逅的途中，遇到曾经是自己生命一部分的人，唯一能够引导他得到幸福的人，因为伊底普斯能够装着对於真相懵然无知。畢竟，
这些年来，他都一直享受快乐的生活，无论他是在晚上或白天做爱，伊底普斯难道从来不回想起，他曾经在三叉路口，跟这个死在那里的老年人的扭打？

And, furthermore, the servant who had survived it, and who, when he saw Oedipus ascending the throne cleared out!

而且，当时存活下来的人，当他看到伊底普斯登基王位，他竟然是装着置身事外！

Come on! Come on! Does not this whole story, this flight of all the memories, indeed this impossibility of
encountering them, is this not all the same designed to evoke something for us? And, moreover, if Sophocles gives us, of course, this whole story of the servant, in order to make us avoid thinking about the fact that Jocasta, at least, could not have not known it, he was oft able to avowed all the same (I brought it here for you) to prevent Jocasta crying out at the moment that she advises him to stop – “For your own good, I am giving you the wisest counsel”. “I’m beginning to have enough of this” Oedipus answers. “Unhappy man, may you never know who you are”! She knows it, she already knows it very well already and this is why she kills herself for having caused the destruction of her son.

别装了！这整个故事，这个对於所有记忆的规避，这些记忆的不可能发生，这难道不是被设计要跟我们召唤某件东西？而且，假如索福克利斯跟我们讲述这个僕人的整个故事，难道不是为了让我避免想到，乔卡斯达至少当时不可能不知道，却照常发誓（我在这里跟你们引述），说是为了避免当时失声驚叫，因为她劝告他停止：「为了你自身的利益，我给你明智的劝告！「我渐渐忍受不了伊底普斯的这些回答」，「不幸的人，你可能不知道，你自己是谁？」她知道，她已经知道得很清楚，这就是为什麽她导致儿子的身败名裂之后，她会自杀。

But who is Jocasta? Well then, why not the lie incarnated in what is involved in the sexual act ? Even if nobody up to now was able to see it or say it, it is a locus to which one accedes only by having set to one side the truth of jouissance.

但是乔卡斯达是何许人也？为什麽牵涉到性的行动时，谎言没有具体显现出来？即使迄今没有人能够看出或说出，这是一个我们认可的轨迹，将欢爽的真理摆置在一边。

Truth cannot make itself heard there, for if it makes itself heard everything makes off and a desert is formed.

真理无法使自己在那里被听见，因为假如真理让自己被听见，一切都将崩塌，人生将成为荒漠。

Nevertheless, the desert is an inhabited place usually, as you knew! Namely this x-feld into which our
measurements do not penetrate. There is normally a whole crowd there: masochists, hermits, devils, empusae and larvae. It was enough simply for people to begin to preach there, specifically psychoanalytic sermonising, for everyone to clear out!

可是，荒漠通常还是有人居住，你们知道！换句话说，这个未知的领域，我们的测量並没有贯彻到那里。通常还是有一大票人在那里：自虐狂者、隐士、魔鬼、魅影、魍魉等。教士传教也从那里开始，特别是精神分析学的理论宣导，为了让每一个能够避凶化吉！

This is what is at stake. From where to speak about it? Well then, from where, faith, everyone brings jouissance into it. For jouissance, as I told you, is not there! This is the value of jouissance. But this, in Freud, is very well said, precisely by the myth, when he reveals the final sense of the Oedipus myth: guilty jouissance, rotten jouissance, no doubt, but again this means nothing if one does not introduce the (14) function of the value of jouissance, namely, what transforms it into something of another order.

这就是岌岌可危的地方。我们要从什麽地方谈论它？就从每个人将欢爽带进里面的信仰开始，因为如同我告诉过你们，「欢爽」並不在那里！这並不是「欢爽」的价值。佛洛伊德说得很清楚，确实是根据这个神话，他显示出伊底普斯神话的最终意义：无可置疑的，这是带着罪惡感的欢爽，腐烂的欢爽，它所介绍的不就是「欢爽价值」的功用？换句话说，是什麽将它转变成为另一个秩序的东西？

The master of the myth that Freud, for his part, forged, what is his jouissance? He enjoys (jouit), as it is said, all the women. And what does that mean? Is there not here some enigma? And these to aspects of the sense of the word “jouir” that I told about you the last time, the subjective aspect and the objective aspect. Is he the one who enjoys essentially? But in that case, all the objects are there, in a way, fleeing outside the field. Or, in that he enjoys, is it the jouissance of the object, namely, the woman, the important thing? This does not mean that there escapes, for the simple reason that it is a myth, that it is a matter of designating, at this point, in this field, where the original function of an absolute jouissance which, the myth says it sufficiently, only functions when there is a killed-off jouissante or if you wish, an aseptic jouissance. Or again to take for my own a word that in reading M. Duzat or M. le Bidois I learnt that the Canadians use, they use the word can which as you know is a jerrycan, for example, and they use the word canne. Here is good franglais, once again!

佛洛伊德作为铸造这个神话的大师，就本身而言，他的「欢爽」是什麽？根据传闻，，他颇享受女人的欢爽。那是什麽意思？这里难道不是相同的谜团？「欢爽」这个字的意义，我上一次告诉过你们，有主观的欢爽，也有客观的欢爽。佛洛伊德真的是欢爽不已吗？假如是那样，那是客体的欢爽吗？换句话说，是以女人作为重要的客体欢爽吗？这並不意味着，我们不要因为它是神话，就将它指明为是绝对欢爽的原初的功用，这个领域。因为绝对的欢爽能够发挥功用，只有当它是一个处理过的欢爽，或具有免疫力的欢爽。再一次，我将阅读杜扎特，或白斗士的着作的话借用过来。我学习到，这些加拿大人使用的话，他们使用「罐头」这个单字，你们知道，那是一种「四方形油罐」，他们使用 装罐头canne 这个字，是从英文借用到法文。

A canned jouissance is what Freud, in the myth of the original father and of this murder, designates for us as being the original function without which we cannot even advance in conceiving of what is now going to be our problem. Namely, what is played out in the operations, thanks to which there are exchanged, there are economised and there are reversed the functions of jouissance such as we have to confront them in psychoanalytic experience.

在伊底普斯杀父娶母的神话故事里，一个预先装好的欢爽，是佛洛伊德跟我们指明是原先的功用，假如没有这个功用，我们甚至无法继续构想，我们的问题的毛病出在哪里？换句话说，在运作中扮演出来的东西，由於这个东西，欢爽的功用才被发挥，才被翻转。我们在精神分析学的经验中，必须要面对它们。

It is after what I have put forward before you today, I think, to fasten – even though in a preparatory way – what we will advance starting from the 10th of May.

今天我跟你们提出这些之后，我认为可以加速，虽然还是以逐渐的方式加快速度，五月十日我们将开始讲述的内容。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw