Logic of Phantasy 100 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 100
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 21
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 21: Wednesday, May 31, 1967

I am only highlighting again in passing the problem posed, posed and left gaping wide, by the Hegelian deduction about the society of masters. How can they get on with one another? And then, good God, the simple reference to what is involved, namely, that the slave, in order to make a slave of him, is not dead! That the result of (7) the fight to the death is something that did not bring death into play. That the master has only the right to kill him, but that precisely, and that is why he is called Servus, the master servat, saves him. And that it is starting from there that the real question is put: what does the master save in the slave? We are brought back to the question of the primordial law, of what the rules of the game establish, namely, one can kill the one who is defeated, and if one does not kill him, at what price will it be?
At what price? It is indeed here that we re-enter the register of significance. What is involved, in the position of the master, is the following: the consequences – always – of the introduction of the subject into the real.

我只是顺便再一次强调，黑格爾有关主人社会的推論所提出的问题，这个问题被提出，而且令人目瞪口呆。主人与奴隶彼此如何相处得来？谢天谢地，他轻描淡写所牵涉的东西，换句话说，奴隶並未死亡，主人自己成为奴隶。主人与奴隶的生死鬥争，其实並没有运作到死亡。主人是有权力殺死奴隶，但是确实地说，他会称之为「服务」，主人要「服务」，因此奴隶被拯救。真正的问题就是從这个地方開始：主人從奴隶身上拯救出什麽？这要從原始法则的问题谈起，遊戏规则所建立的，换句话说，我们能够殺死被我们打败的人，假如我们不殺死他，那後果的代价是什麽？要花费怎样的代价？确实就是在这里，我们重新进入意义的铭记。從主人的立场来说，所牵涉的内涵如下：结果是，生命的主体总是被引导进入真实界。

To measure what is involved concerning the effects of jouissance, one has to pose, at the level of this term, a certain number of principles. Namely, that if we have introduced jouissance, it is in the logical mode of what Aristotle calls an ousia, a substance. Namely, something very precisely which cannot be – this is how he expresses himself in his book of Categories – which can neither be attributed to a subject nor put into any subject.

为了测量关於「欢爽」的影响会牵涉到什麽，從这个術语的层次，我们必须要提出某些的规则。换句话说，假如我们已经介绍了「欢爽」，那是以亞里斯多德所谓的「物质」在逻辑上的模式。换句话说，某件既無法被歸属到生命主体，也無法被放置进入任何的生命主体。这是亞里斯多德在他的「范畴」一书中，夫子自道的方式。

It is something that is not susceptible to being greater or lesser, which is not introduced into any comparative, into any greater or lesser sign, indeed any lesser or equal.

这个「物质」不受增加或减少的影响，也無法被介绍到任何的比较的模式，無法进入较大或较小的符号，确实無法进入任何的减少或相等。

Jouissance is this something in which the pleasure principle marks its traits and its limits. But it is something substantial and which, precisely, is important to produce, to produce in the form that I am going to articulate in the name of a new principle: There is no jouissance except that of the body (il n’y a de jouissance que du corps).

「欢爽」是这个东西，由快乐原理标示它的特征及它的极限。这是某件实质存在的东西，确实重要，值得我用一个新颖的原理的名义，表达它的内涵：没有生命的欢爽存在，除了就是身体的生命欢爽。

Allow me to say that I consider that the maintenance of this principle, its affirmation as being absolutely essential, appears to me to have a greater ethical import than that of materialism. I mean that this formula has exactly the import, the relief, that the affirmation that there is only matter introduces into the field of knowledge. For after all, you have only to see, with the evolution of science, that this matter, when all is said and done, is confused so well with the interplay of elements into which it is resolved, that it becomes at the limit almost indistinguishable to know what is being played out before us, whether it is these elements (stoicheia), these final signifying elements, or those of the atom. Namely, what they themselves contain that is quasi-indistinguishable from the progress of your mind, the operation of your research. But what is involved in it in the final analysis is a structure that you can no longer refer in any way to what you have as a common experience of matter.

容我这样说，我认为，为了维持这个原理，肯定它作为绝对的重要，我觉得比唯物主义的意义，更具有倫理上的价值。我的意思是，进入知识的领域，这个公式确实拥有这个意义，这个救济，及这个肯定：生命的欢爽在於身体是一种物质。畢竟，你们所必须做的就是观看一下，随着科学的进化，当一切都说了做了，这个身体的物质，会跟它被分解而成的元素的运作，如此的混淆不清，以致於在淋漓尽致时，我们無法区分清楚，在我们面前扮演的是哪一个。是否生命的欢爽就是这些元素，这些最後的意符的元素，或就是原子的那些元素？换句话说，它们自己所包含的，跟你们心灵的进展，你们研究的运作，似乎密切到不可区分。但是，最後分析时会牵涉到的是一种结構。在这个结構里，你根本不会再提到你所拥有的东西，当着是身体作为物质的共同经验。

But to say that there is no jouissance except that of the body and, specifically, that this refuses you the eternal jouissances, is what is at stake in what I called the ethical value of materialism. Which consists, namely, in asking what happens in your everyday life seriously, and if there is a question of jouissance, to look it straight in the face and not reject it into the uncertain future…

但是，说生命的欢爽不存在，除了就是身体的欢爽，明确而言，这等於拒绝给你这个永恒的生命的欢爽。岌岌可危的地方就是，我所谓的唯物主义的倫理上的价值。换句话说，岌岌可危的地方在於，询问你们的日常生活，究竟发生什麽嚴重的问题？假如生命的「欢爽」发生问题，你们要直接去面对它，不要让它带进不稳定的未来、、、

(8) There is no jouissance except that of the body. This corresponds very precisely to the truth requirement in Freudianism.

（第八）生命的「欢爽」並不存在，除了就是身体的欢爽。这确实是跟佛洛伊德的真理的要求，完全吻合。

So here we are, then, leaving entirely to its wanderings the question of whether what is at stake is to be or not to be. Whether it is a matter of being a man or woman in an act that is supposed to be the sexual act. And if this is what dominates the whole suspense of jouissance, it is also what, ethically, we have to take seriously. Something in connection with which there arises this something that we could call our right of inspection.

这就是我们的处境，我们让生命的实存与否的这个问题，陷入岌岌可危，任其漂泊不定。问题是，在被认为的性爱的演出的行动时，你扮演的是男性或是女性的角色？假如这就是，为什麽生命的「欢爽」会被摆弄得如此懸荡不定，從生命倫理的层面来说，那也是我们必须要认真面对的地方。有关这一点，出现了某件我们能够称之为「调查的权利」。

Oedipus is not a philosopher. He is the model of what is at stake as regards the relation of what is involved in a knowledge and the knowledge that he proves to have, this is indicated to us, at least, in the form of the riddle, is a knowledge about what is involved in the body. Through this he breaks the power of ferocious jouissance, that of the Sphinx, which very strangely is offered to us in the form of a vaguely feminine figure, let us say semi-bestial, semi-feminine. What he accedes to after that – which does not make him, as you know, any more triumphant for all that – is undoubtedly a jouissance. The moment that he enters it, he is already in the trap. I mean that this jouissance is what marks him, already and in advance, with the sign of guilt.

伊底普斯並不是一位哲学家。他只是岌岌可危的这个典范，关於牵涉到认识自我是什麽的关系，我们所观看到的是，他证明他拥有的这个自我认识是以一个谜团的方式，关於他的身体所牵涉到的自我认识。憑藉这一点，他突破了这个残酷的生命的「欢爽」的力量，破解了司芬克斯的人生之谜。耐人寻味的是，人面狮身的司芬克斯出现在我们面前的形象，近乎是女性身体的形状。容我们这样说，一半是动物的身体，一半是女性的身体。他後来所承认的，無可置疑的，就是一个生命的「欢爽」，你们知道，那也没有使他更加得意洋洋。当他一进入这个生命欢爽的时刻，他已经就是深陷其中，身不由己了。我的意思是，这就是为什麽，这个已经存在，而且是事先存在的生命的「欢爽」，会使他充满罪惡感的迹象。

Oedipus did not know what he was enjoying. I posed the question of whether Jocasta, for her part, knew it. And even, why not, did Jocasta enjoy letting Oedipus remain in ignorance of it? Let us say: what part of Jocasta’s jouissance corresponds to the fact that she left Oedipus in ignorance of it?

伊底普斯並不知道，他究竟在享受什麽？我提出的问题是，喬卡斯达，她自己本人，是否心知肚明？为什麽喬卡斯达不让伊底普斯永远保持在不知情当中？容我们这样说：喬卡斯达的生命的「欢爽」，有哪些部份对应这个事实，是她刻意让伊底普斯保持在不知情当中？

It is at this level that, thanks to Freud, there are posed henceforth serious questions about what is involved in the truth.

感谢佛洛伊德，就在这个层次，有关真理会牵涉到的一些嚴重的问题，会一一被提出。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw