Logic of Phantasy 114 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 114
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 24
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 24: Wednesday, June 21, 1967

It is necessary … it is necessary for me, today, to cut things short. I announced to you, the last time, that this would be my last lecture for this school year. We must close this subject without having done any more than open it up. I hope that others will take it up, if I have been able to animate them with this desire.

今天我需要长话短说。上一次我跟你们宣佈，这将是这一学年我的最后一次演讲。我们必须结束这个主题，虽然我们迄今所做的僅是展開它。我希望以后还会有其它人接续探讨这个主题，假如我目前所做的，能够激發这方面的欲望

To cut things short, I intend to terminate on what one could call a clinical reminder. Not at all, certainly, that when I speak about logic and specifically about the logic of the phantasy, I heave, even for an instant, the field of the clinic. Everyone knows, everyone testifies, among the practitioners, that it is in the day-to-day declarations of their patients that they rediscover, very frequently, my principal terms. And, moreover, I, for my part, have not gone looking for them anywhere else.

为了长话短说，我打算以我们所谓的精神分析诊所应注意事项作为终结。当我们谈論到逻辑，明确地说，谈論到幻见的逻辑，我没有丝毫脱离精神分析诊所的领域。每個人都知道，每個人都可证明，在精神分析师從業者当当中，他们时常宣称每天都会重新發现到，我的主要術语適用於他们的病人。而且，就我而言，我的探讨，一向就是在这個领域，不是别的地方。

What I am placing, by what I call these reference-terms of my teaching, what I am placing, I mean what I am arranging the place of, is the psychoanalytic discourse itself.

我所正在安置的，根据我所谓的教学的运用的術语，我所正在安置的，我的意思是，我正在安置的这個位置，就是精神分析真理論述的本身。

no later than the beginning of this week, in this case it is a testimony which is the inverse, in a way, of the one that I very often hear, namely, that such and such a patient seemed to tell his analyst, the very afternoon of the day after my seminar, something which seemed to be a repetition of it, to the point that people might have asked themselves if he could have had an echo of it. And if one marvels all the more at cases where this is really impossible, inversely, I could say that, no later than the beginning of this week, I found, in the accounts of three sessions that were brought to me, o a psychoanalysis – it does not matter whether it was a training or therapeutic one – the very terms that I knew (since it was Monday) that I had been … “excogitating” the night before, in the place in the country where I prepare my seminar for you.

这個星期開始时，在这个情形，这是一個在某方面相反於我时常听到的证词。换句话说，有某個病人似乎告诉他的精神分析师，在聼完我的演讲的以后那一天，某件事情似乎是它的重複，甚至人们本来可能自问，是否他会是那件事情的迴响。假如我们会更加大吃一惊，遭遇到完全不可能的病例，相反的病例，我可以这样说。在这個星期開始时，我發现到，我拿到三節精神分析学的课程的描述。是否那是一个治療分析的经验並不重要，我知道的这些術语（那是星期一），我從前一個晚上来，就一直在構想，在这个地方，在我準备我的演讲内容的国家。

So then, as regards this analytic discourse, I do something other than give, in a way, the co-ordinates in which it is situated. But what does that mean? Because I can link, because everyone can, so often, link this discourse, and it is not enough to say that it is the discourse of a neurotic. That does not specify this discourse. It is the discourse of (2) a neurotic in the conditions, even in the conditioning , it is given by the fact of being held in the office of a psychoanalyst. And from now on it is not for nothing that I am putting forward this condition of the place (local).

因此關於这個精神分析真理論述，我在某方面所做的，不僅僅是它位置所在的座标。那是什麽意思？因为我能够连接，因为每個人都能够，时常地连接这个真理論述。若是僅是将它视为是神经质患者的真理論述，那就过於窄化。它並明确指明是这個真理論述。在诸如其類的情况当中，甚至这一個情况，一個神经质的真理論述，是在精神分析师的办公室所產生。從现在起，我開始提出真理論述發生的位置问题，应该是意味深遠。

Does this mean that these echoes, these transfers (decalques) even, signify something very strange ?

这意味着，这些迴响，这些轉移，意味着某件非常奇怪的东西吗？

Everyone knows, everyone can see, everyone can have experienced, that my discourse, of course, here, is not one of free association.

每個人都知道，每個人都能看见，每個人都可能曾经经验到，我的真理論述在这里，並非是自由联想、無的放矢。

Does that mean that this discourse to which we recommend the method, the path, of free association, this discourse of the patients, is the same as, overlaps my one here, only when he fails in it in a way and when he speculates … when he introspects … when he lucubrates, when he intellectualises, as we put it so nicely. No, of course not. There must indeed be something else which, again, can tell us that the patient is obeying the recommendation of free association in so far as it is the path that we propose to him, can all the same, in a way legitimately, say things, and, in effect, everyone knows well that if we ask to pass along the paths of free association, this does not mean a slipshod discourse, nor a broken discourse. But all the same, in order for something to reach, sometimes even in its trickery, such a distinction about the impact of his relation to his own demand, to his question about his desire, is all the same something of a nature to make us reflect for an instant on what conditions this discourse beyond our instructions.

这难道意味着，我们推荐方法、途径、自由联想的这個真理論述，对於精神病患的真理論述，是相同於，或重叠於我在此的真理論述，只有当我在某方面若合符節，当我在沉思、当我在内省、当我在孜孜窮研，当我在卖弄学问、当我在天花乱坠地演讲？不！当然不是！一定还有其它东西能够告诉我们，病人正在服從自由联想的推荐，因为那個途径是我们建议给他。这个途径總是能够振振有理地道出一些事情。事实上，每個人都心知肚明，假如我们要求沿着自由联想的途径前进，这並不意味着是一個鬆散的真理論述，也不是一个破爛的真理論述。但是，为了到達某件东西，有时候甚至是具有欺骗性的东西，这样一個区别，關於他跟他自己内在需求的關係的影响，他跟他自己欲望有關问题的影响，这个区别依舊是某件属于自然的东西，让我们不禁有片刻的反思，对於是什麽造成这个真理論述，超越了我们自己的体制之外？

And here we have of course to bring into play this element (today I will really remain at the level of what is most commonly obvious) called interpretation.

在此，我们当然必须运作到所谓「解释」的这個因素，（今天我将始终保持在这個最显而易见的层次），

Before asking oneself what it is, how, when, it has to be made … something which does not fail to provoke, more and more, in analysts, some embarrassment, for want perhaps of posing the question at a moment prior to the one at which I am going to pose it. It is the following: how is the discourse, free discourse, the free discourse which is recommended to the subject, conditioned by the fact that it is, in some fashion, on the way to being interpreted. And this is what leads us simply to evoke some reference points that the logicians, here, have given us for a long time and this indeed is what pushed me, this year, to speak about logic. Not that here, certainly, I was able to give a course on logic. This was not compatible with what I had to cover. I tried to give the framework of a certain logic, which interests us on two registers: of alienation, on the one hand, of repetition on the other.

在自问解释是什麽的问题之前，我们必须要做的解释是，某件一定会引起精神分析师的尴尬，因为就在我正在提出这個问题的时刻，先前並没有人这样提出。这就是以下的问题：这個真理論述，自由的真理論述，被推荐给生命主体的自由的真理論述，是如何被这個事实所制约，当它在某方面是正处於被解释的途中。这就是为什麽我们要召唤逻辑專家长久以来所给我们的指称符号，这确实就是为什麽我今年不得不谈論到逻辑。当然，这倒不是因为我对於逻辑的课程如数家珍。这並不是我原先要谈論逻辑的初衷。我设法提供某些逻辑的架構，其中有两個架構让我们感到興趣：一方面是疏离的架構，另一方面是重複的架構。

These two quadrangular, fundamentally superimposed schemas that I hope some of you at least will remember.

这两個四角的架構，基本上是重叠的基模。我希望你们至少有些人会记得。

But I hope also to have stimulated some people to open, like that, to open a little, to cast a side-long glance at some book on logic, were it only to remind themselves about the distinctions of value that the logician introduces into discourse when he distinguishes, for example, the sentences called assertive, from imperative or (3) implorative sentences. Simply, to signal that it happens, that it can happen, it can be posed, it is localised, at the level of the first, of the questions that the others, which are not, of course, any less words full of impact, and which might also interest the logicians, but, a curious thing, that they only tackle by going around them and, from an angle, in a way, which ensures that up to today, they have left this field rather intact. The sentences that I called imperative, implorative, in so far as, after all, what?

我也希望我的演讲会激發有些人能够朝着这個途径展開，或從这個角度阅读有關逻辑的書，即使用意只是提醒他们自己，有關逻辑專家介绍价值的区别，到真理的論述。例如，当他区别所谓的「主张的句子」跟「指使的句子」，或「懇求的句子」之间的不同。简单来说，表示事情發生，可能發生，能够被提出，能够被找出位置，都属於第一种层次，關於那些同样具有影响的文字的问题，也可能使逻辑專家感到興趣。但是耐人寻味的是，逻辑專家只能從问题的周圍，旁敲侧撃，在某方面，是從一個角度确定，直到今天，他们仍然讓这個领域保持完整。那我所谓的「指使」及「懇求」的句子，畢竟指的是什麽？

They solicit indeed something which, if we refer ourselves to what I defined as an act, cannot but interest logic. If they solicit achieve interventions it can sometimes be under the heading of acts. Nevertheless, only the first would be, according to the logicians, able to be submitted to what can be called criticism.

他们确实觸發到某件逻辑会感到興趣的东西，假如我们提到我定义为「演出」的东西。假如他们觸發到要求介入的东西，有时候这个东西能够以「演出」的名目出现。可是，依照逻辑專家，首先它要能够做到的是，承受所谓的「批评」。

Let us define this as the criticism which requires a reference to the conditions necessary so that , from a
statement, there can be deduced another statement.

讓我跟「批评」定個定義：批评要求一個指称给必需要的状况，这样從陈述当中，我们能够推論出另外一个陈述。

A person who, today, might have been parachuted in here for the first time and who would never, of course, have heard tell of these things, would find that this is quite banal. But in fact, I suppose all the same that for all of you, there is resonating for your ears the distinction here between stating and the statement.

今天，或许有人是第一次出现在这里，也可能有人從来没有聼过類似的说法。他们将会發现，这些不过是老生常谈。但是，事实上，我依舊認为，你们所有的人，你们的耳际将会迴响着「陈述的动作」跟「陈述的内容」之间的差别。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com