Logic of Phantasy 112 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 112
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 23
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 23: Wednesday, June 14, 1967

He plays with the subject. What subject? The subject, I could say, as I said somewhere: “that one is subject to thinking or subject to vertigo”, the subject to jouissance. Which, as you can clearly see, introduces this reflection which, from the subject, makes us pass to what I marked as being its remainder, the little o-object.

他玩弄着主体。什麽主体？生命的主体，我可以这样说，如同我在某个地方所说：主体隸属於思想，或隸属於晕眩，或隸属於欢爽。你们能够很清楚地看得出来，这介绍了这个反思。從主体開始，这个反思让我们将这个小客体，视为我所标示的它的残馀物。

It is at the level of the Other, with a capital O of course, that he brings about this subversion, in regulating – I say in regulating – what from all time the philosophers have sensed as worthy of qualifying what they call disdainfully the relations of the body to the soul, and which in Spinoza in called, by its true name: “titillatio”, tickling.

就在大它者的层次，当然是大写字母O标示的大它者。他導致这个规范的颠覆，我说它规范自古以来，哲学家認为是值得给予品质，对于他们渺视地称之为身体跟靈魂的關係。史宾诺薩顾名思义称之为「呵癢」。

Apparently, he enjoys the body of the Other. But you clearly see that the question is to be displaced to the level of the one that I formulated in a field where things are less captivating, when I imaged this relation of the master and the slave by asking, does (10) what one is enjoying, enjoy? So then, you see clearly the immediate relation with the field of the sexual act.

显而易见的，他享受大它者的身体。但是你们很清楚地看出，问题不应该被更换成为我所诠释的这个层次，在这个领域，事情可不那麽令人着迷，当我想像主人跟奴隸的關係，询问到，我们享受的是什麽？是享受吗？所以，你们很清楚地看出它跟性爱演出的场域，这个立即的關係

Only the question, at the level of the sadist, is the following It is that he does not know that it is to this question as such that he is attached, that he becomes its instrument, pure and simple. That he does not know what he himself is doing as a subject, that he is essentially in Verleugnung. That he can sense it, interpret it in a thousand ways, which he does not fail to do.

在虐待狂患者的层次，唯一的问题是，他並不知道，他跟这個问题的本身紧附在一起。他变成是它的工具，纯粹而简单的工具。他不知道，他自己正在表现作为一个生命的主体。他基本上是处於「被否認」状態。他能够感觉到它，以上千的方式解释它，他一定会这样做。

It is necessary, of course, that he should have some powers of articulation, which was the case of the Marquis de Sade, as a result of which, legitimately, his name remains attached to the thing.

当然，他应该会有某些表達的力量。马奎士、薩德就是这个情况，结果是，他的名字理所当然地跟虐待狂这個名称被联想在一起。

Sade remains essential because of having clearly marked the relation of the sadistic act to what is involved in jouissance and for having – when he tried in a derisory manner to articulate its law in the form of a universal rule worthy of the articulation of Kant, in this celebrated fragment: “Frenchmen, one more effort to be republican” (the object of my commentary in the ratiche that I evoked earlier) – for having shown that this law can only be articulated in terms, not of jouissance of the body – note is clearly in the text – but of parts of the body. Each one, in this phantastical State (with a capital S) which is supposed to be founded on the right to jouissance, each one being bound to offer to whoever marks his designs on it, the jouissance of one or other “part”, the author writes (and not in vain here), of his body.

薩德始终是举足轻重的人物，因为他曾经清楚地标示，虐待狂的行动跟生命的欢爽所牵涉的内涵的關係，当他以一种玩世不恭的態度，设法表達它的法则，使用跟康德的表達同样举世皆準的形式，这個著名的片言隻语流传下来：「法国人，再度努力成为共和党员。」（我早先用法文表達我评論的对象）。他曾经显示，这个法则只能被表達，不是用身体的欢爽的術语，而是用身体的某些部位。每一個表達，在这个幻见的状態，（用大写字母S表示），基礎应该被認为是建立在欢爽的权利上。每一個表達都一定要提供某个「部位」的欢爽，给予任何标示他的设计的人。作者这样描述他的身体，不是無的放矢的。

Refuge of jouissance, this part, which the sadistic subject does not know is, this part, very exactly what is, for him, his Dasein, that it realises the essence of it. Here is what is already given as a key by Sade’s text.

生命欢爽的避难所，这个部位，虐待狂的主体所不知道的是，这個部位，对他而言，确实就是他生命的实存。它实现了它的本质。这确实就是薩德的文本已经呈现给我们的一把開啟的锁匙。

Naturally…I do not have the time – because, my God, time is passing – to re-articulate what results from this renewal, from this reclassification, one with respect to the other, of jouissance and the subject, and how close it is, of course, to the phantasy immediately articulated by Sade, of jouissance where it is, raised to its absolute in the Other, (very precisely in this part of the 1 which is here farthest to the right), where we have seen sliding, at the beginning of the problem, unsupported jouissance, the one that is at stake, and for which Sade, the atheist, must construct this figure, who is, nevertheless, the most manifest and the most manifestly like God: that of the jouissance of an absolute wickedness.

我的天，时间过得好快。当然，我没有足够时间来重新表達，生命主体这个「一」跟大它者，生命的欢爽跟主体，这個重新復活、重新分類的结果是什麽，它跟薩德当下表達的这個欢爽有多靠近，以及被提升到大它者领域它的绝对状態的欢爽位置，（确实就在这個生命主体「一」的部位，靠右边最远处。）在那里，我们看到孤立無援的生命的欢爽，在底端開展的地方溜滑不定，这就是岌岌可危的欢爽。对於这個欢爽，薩德，这位無神論者，必须建構这個人物，他卓然独立，像上帝那样卓然独立：绝对邪惡的生命欢爽的人物。

This essential and sovereign evil, which then and then alone – carried along, as one might say, by the logic of the phantasy – Freud … Sade admits the sadist is only the servant of: that he ought to open up, for the radical evil that nature constitutes, the paths for the maximum of destruction.

这個基本而统治的邪惡，我们不妨说，单独被幻见的逻辑扱带向前。薩德承認，虐待狂只是它的僕役，他应该打開最大量毁滅的途径，这個自然组成的極端的邪惡。

But, let us not forget, what is at stake there is only the logic of the thing. If I developed it…in – or indicated you to refer to its sources – in the so manifestly futile, ridiculous, character, in the always miserably aborted character of sadistic enterprises, it is because it is starting from this appearance that we will better be able to make the ( ii ) truth appear. The truth which is properly given by masochistic practice, where it is obvious that the masochist – in order to withdraw, as one might say, to steal away, to the only corner where manifestly it is graspable, which is the little o-object -gives himself over, for his part deliberately, to this identification to this object as rejected. He is less than nothing not even an animal, the animal that is mistreated, and moreover a subject who has abandoned by contract all the privileges of his function as subject.

但是让我们不要忘记，岌岌可危的是只是事物的逻辑。假如我们發展它，或是指示你提到它的来源，这個如此白费力氣，如此荒谬可笑的特性，这個虐待狂总是悲惨夭折的企图，那是因为從这个表象開始，我们比较能够使这個生命主体的真理出现。这個真理由受虐狂的行径適当地表達出来，显而易见的，这個受虐狂为了要撤退，为了要溜走，溜到它明显能够被掌握的唯一的角落，也就是小客体的位置，受虐狂放縱自己，就他自己而言是刻意的，放縱自己認同这個小客体当着是被拒绝。这时他什麽都不是，甚至连动物都不是，连被虐待的动物都不是。尤有甚者，这個受虐狂的生命主体根据契约，放棄了他作为生命主体的功用所有的特权。

This search, this almost frantic construction, of an impossible identification to what is reduced to the extremes of waste products, and that this is linked for him to the capture of jouissance, here is where there appears naked, exemplary, the economy that is at stake.

这個寻求，这個几乎是狂热的建構，寻求不可能的認同被化简到廢物產品的極端。就他而言，他被连接到生命欢爽的捕捉，这就是岌岌可危的作为典范生命活力，毫無遮欄出现的地方。

Here, let us observe, without pausing at this sublime verse (a little ironic laugh from Lacan) which humanises, as I might say, this manoeuvre:

在此，让我们观察到，我们不要留连在这個崇高的诗篇，（拉康自己解嘲地咯咯笑），我不妨说，这個运作就是我们人性化的表现。

”Tandis que des mortels la multitude vile, Sous le fouet du Plaisir, ce bourreau sans merci,
Va cueillir des remords dans la fete servile, …

(“While the vast multitude of mortals, under the lash of Pleasure, that merciless executioner, gather only remorse in their slavish feasting…”)”

（芸芸眾生，在欢乐这位無情的蒯子手的驱策下，在奴婢般的盛宴中，享受到的只是自己的悔恨、、、）

All of this is only a joke! It is a reflection bearing on the law of pleasure. Pleasure is not a “merciless executioner”.

这一切僅是一個笑话！这是一個跟快乐法则有關的反思。快乐並不是一个「無情的蒯子手」。

Pleasure maintains you precisely within a rather padded limit, because it is pleasure. But, what is at stake, when the poet expresses himself in this way, is very precisely to mark its distance:

快乐维持你，确实就是在某一個填補的限度内，因为这就是快乐。但是岌岌可危的是，当诗人以这种方式，表達他自己，确实就是要标示它的距离：

”Ma douleur, donne moi la main; vient par ici, Loin d’eux, etc…
(My pain, give me your hand; come this way, far away from them, etc…)”

（我的痛苦，请帮我的忙；请走这一边，遠离它们，等等、、、）

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com