Logic of Phantasy 119 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 119
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

I tried, for that, to construct for you a little apologue that I borrowed, certainly not by chance, but for reasons that are quite essential to what is called the art of the salesman. Namely, the art of making an offer with the intention of creating a demand. You have to make someone desire an object that he has no need of, in order to push him to demand it.

因为这样，我设法跟你们建構一個我從别处借用过来的寓言。当然不是完全是巧合，理由是因为所谓的推销员的促销技俩。换句话说，促销的技俩就是先提出建议，意图創造一個需求。你必须使某一個人渴望一個原先他並没有需要的客体，为了驱使他需求这個客体。

So then, I do not need to describe for you all the tricks that are used for that. One tells him that he is going to miss it, for example, because someone else is going to take it, who, because of this fact, will have an advantage over him (aura barre sur lui). I am using words that echo my usual symbols. It is nevertheless literally like that that this functions in the mind of what is called a good salesman. Or again one tries to show him that this will be an altogether major external sign for the style that he is trying to give his life. We believe in it … In short, it is through the desire of the Other that every object is present when it is a matter of … buying it (l’acheter).

所以我並不需要跟你们描述所有被運用在那裡的诡计。例如，有人告诉他说，他会错过它，因为某個其它的人将会拿走它。因为这個事实，这個人将会佔盡他的便宜。我正在使用一些我平常使用的符号，有共鸣的字眼。那些字眼的功用，類似所谓的推销员心裡所構想的。或者，我们设法跟他显示，这些完全是外在主要符号，作为他塑造自我生命的风格。我们相信它。總之，就是透过大它者的欲望，每一個客体的出现，变成是买卖的问题。

L’acheter, l’acheter …lachete (cowardice). What do you know! … It is rather curious, it is a word … lachere, Feigheit … You are a coward, sir! … Tua res agitur! It is indeed, in effect, a matter of cowardice. But you are the one involved. Yes. This indeed is what is at stake. Which can be seen from the fact that the principal result, as you know very well, that emerges from this series of malversations, the ones that life summarises under the sign of desire, the principal result will be the one that always pushes you further in the sense of redeeming yourself. Of redeeming yourself from cowardice.

「懦弱！」你们到底懂得多少！这是耐人寻味的，懦弱是一個字眼。先生，你是一個懦夫！事实上，这確实是人性懦弱的问题。但是你们每一個人都首当其衝。这確实是岌岌可危的地方。我们從这個事实可以看得出来，如你们心知肚明的，從这一系列处理不当導致的主要的结果是：在欲望的符号象征下，生命總结的不当处理。主要的结果将是總是将你逼迫得更加朝向重新救赎自己。将你自己從懦弱中，救赎出来。

I took care, all the same, before introducing this dimension which is, of course, always (12) masked in analytic interventions, but that those, the others, that those who are in the know, I mean the one who speaks an analytic discourse does not mince words about. He knows very well that the dimension of cowardice is involved, but I do not know … I took the trouble to re-open for you, in any case … like that any one at all of the great observations by Freud.

我仍然小心翼翼，才介绍这個当然總是以精神分析学作为掩護的向度，但是那些知道内情的人，我是指那些对於精神分析真理論述谈得頭頭是道，也敢於就事論事的人。他会心知肚明，这個懦弱的向度所牵涉的，但是我並不知道、、、我费盡心力，才跟你们重新打開，無論如何，这是佛洛伊德仔细的观察所得的一项。

I came right away to the Ratman, to the fact that the patient immediately introduces this dimension of his cowardice! only, what is not clear is where this cowardice is. It is just like the earlier dimension, that of truth. The courage of the subject is, perhaps, precisely to play the game of desire, the desire of the Other. It is to give pride of place to something which is moreover, perhaps, the cowardice of the Other who is buying him and to find oneself there at the end, to rediscover oneself. For, when all is said and done, this indeed is where the problem is when neurosis is at stake.

我立刻会提到「鼠人」，提到这個事实，病人立刻会介绍他的懦弱的向度！只是模糊不清的是，这個懦弱是在哪裡？这個就像是早期的向度，真理的向度。或许，生命主体的勇氣，就是要扮演欲望的遊戏，大它者的欲望。要将以为驕傲的位置给予某件或许是大它者懦弱的东西。这個大它者收买他，然後發现自己在那裡处於困境。当一切都说都做了，这確实是问题所在，神经质患者岌岌可危的地方。

But, for that, it is important to grasp clearly or, more exactly, to recall, to bring back to the forefront of what I have said about desire, what I said in its time about desire, when I said: desire is its interpretation. Huh? One could all the same object. Because after all this desire … this unconscious desire, whose meaning no one wants to know, an unconscious desire. What ought, in principle, to be more conscious than desire? If one speaks about unconscious desire, it is indeed, in effect, because it is the desire of the Other that it is possible. If there exists, precisely, what I have just evoked, by a reminder of the metaphor of buying, as regards which one does not know who it has a hold on, of this captivation in the desire of the Other … it is because there is a step to be taken.

但是，因为这样，要清楚地理解是很重要，更明確地说，要回溯，将我所说的關於欲望，我说说的關於欲望的显现，带到前頭，当我说：欲望是它的解释。嗯？我们可能仍然不赞同。因为畢竟这個欲望、、、这個無意識的欲望，它的意義没有人想要知道，一個無意識的欲望。在原理上，还有什麽东西会比欲望更具有意識？假如我们谈到關於無意識的欲望，事实上，那確实是因为大它者的欲望是可能的。假如我刚刚所召唤的，確实存在，由於想到买卖的一個比喻。在这個比喻当中，我们不知道，它掌控的是谁，在大它者的欲望，谁是它的俘虜。因为还有一個步骤需要採取。

Unconscious desire, we are told, if it is unconscious, it is because in the discourse which supports it, a link has been broken so that the desire of the Other … is what? … unrecognisable! It is the best device that has been found to stop this machine. There is a step, well then, we create on the hither side of this step, not the non-desire, but the desire-not (desir-pas). The definition of unconscious desire is this – which allows us to express the subtleties of negation in French – namely, this point of arrival that the pas, the point, designates for us, and I already made use of it on the subject of the pas te sens.

我们被告诉，無意識的欲望，假如它是無意識，因为支持它的真理的論述，有一個连接被打破，所以大它者的欲望，無法被体認出来！为了停止这個机器，这是我们曾经找到的最好的设置，不是「没有欲望」，而是「不欲望什麽」。無意識欲望的定義就是这個，它允许我们用法文来表達「否定」的微妙处。换句话说，到達的这一点，指明给我们的这一点，我己经使用它，在这個「不欲望什麽」的生命主体上。

This desire-not, I would even go -if you leave me a little bit of rope – as far as making of it a single written name and to give to this des which dominates it, the same accent as desespoir, or as desetre, and say that the unconscious desire of desirpas, is something which collapses with respect to some irpas or other. An irpas which designates very precisely the desire of the Other. With respect to which interpreting it would be verbalised rather well by an irpasse.

这个「不欲望什麽」，假如你们留给我一点线索，我甚至还会推演下去，用一個文字的名字解释它，为了给予这個控制它的「欲望des」，跟这個「desespoir」或「desetre」相同的强调，然後说，这個無意識的欲望desirpas，是某件崩塌的东西，關於某個「内射光谱」。一個「内射光谱」明確地指明大它者的欲望。關於这個欲望，我们可以用「红外先穿透」，解释得清楚。

The inversion can be carried out around this. The fact is that the interpretation, in effect, is for its part what takes the place of desire, in the sense that, earlier, you were objecting to me that it is there first, however unconscious it may be. But it is there, also, as one passes by it again, because it is already articulated and interpretation, when it took its place … luckily (13) that does not settle anything, because it is not at all sure that the desire that we have interpreted has an outcome. We even count on the fact that it will not have one, and that it will always remain, and all the better, a desirpas.

这個倒轉能够绕着这個進行。事实上，这個解释就本身而言，取代了欲望。早先，你们曾经反对我说，欲望原先就是在那裡，無論它是多麽的無意識。但是它原先就在那裡，当我们重新再经过时，因为它已经被表達，解释已经取代它的位置。幸運地，解释並没有解决任何事情，因为它根本就不確定，我们所解释的欲望会有什麽结果。我们甚至是依靠这個事实：它将不会有一个结果。它總是一個「不欲望什麽」，而且这样还更好。

This even gives us, a lot of elbow-room in the interpretation of desire.

这個甚至给予我们许多迴旋的空间，来解释欲望。

But then, it is necessary, all the same, to know here what is meant by its support under the name of phantasy, and what game we are playing in interpreting unconscious desires, specifically those of the neurotic. It is here that we have to pose the question about the phantasy. We have posed it ceaselessly. Let us pose it again here, at the end, one last time.

但是在此，我们仍然需要知道，以幻见的名義来支持欲望是什麽意思。当我们解释無意識欲望时，我们扮演的遊戏，特别是神经质患者的無意識欲望。就在这裡，我们必须提出这個有關幻见的问题。我们曾经不断地提出它。讓我们在此再提出它一次，最後，最後的一次。

When the logicians – from whom the whole of this discourse today started -limit themselves to the formal functions of truth, I told you, they find a gap, they find a insular space, between this principle of non-contradiction and that of bivalence. And you find it in Aristotle, precisely in the book called On interpretation and which – I point it out to you for your convenience – is in paragraph 19-a, in the notation which designates the classic manuscripts of Aristotle and that you will find on page 100 (it is easy to remember), in the very bad translation that I am recommending to you: that of Tricot, which is the usual one.

当逻辑專家自我设限在真理的正式功用上，（今天我们全部的真理論述，就是從逻辑專家開始，）我告诉你们，他们找到一個「鸿溝」，一個孤立的空间，在非矛盾的这個原理跟二原子价的原理之间。你们在亞里斯多德的着作里会找到它，確实地，在「論解释」的这本書。为了替你们節省麻烦，我跟你们指出是在第十九段那裡，在指明是亞里斯多德的古典原稿那裡，你们能够在第100页找到（这很好记），我推荐给你们，雖然翻译得不顶好。特锐科的翻译，是最通用的译本。

Aristotle puts into question the function involved in the bivalence of the true and the false in its consequences. I mean in what it involves when it is a matter of the contingent, in what is going to happen. What in going to happen, whether yes or no, if we posit that it is true or false. It is therefore true or false immediately, namely, that it is already decided. Naturally, that cannot work.

亞里斯多德置疑「真实」与「虚假」二原子价，在结果所牵涉到的功用。我的意思是，它所牵涉到的是偶發性的问题，对於将来会發生的事情。将会發生的事情，無論是正確或是错误，假如我们提出，它是真实或是虚假的问题。因此，这会立刻是真实，或是虚假，换句话说，它已经被决定。当然，亞里斯多德这种说法行不通。

The solution that he gives of it, the one that consists in casting doubt on bivalence, is not what is in question here.

他所给予的解决方法，在於对二原子价予於置疑。並不是我们在此讨論的重点。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com