The Logic of Phantasy 02

Fantasy 02
JACQUES LACAN
雅克、拉岡

SEMINAR 14: THE LOGIC OF FANTASY
第十四讲座:幻见的罗辑
The Logic of Fantasy 02
Seminar 1: Wednesday, November 16, 1966

The barred subject, in its relation to this o-object, is joined in this formula written on the board, by this something which is presented as a lozenge shape, which I earlier called the diamond (le poincon) and, which, in truth, is a sign that was forged expressly to join together in itself what can be isolated from it, depending on whether you separate it with a vertical stroke or with a horizontal stroke.

这个被禁制的主体,跟小客体的关系,用书写在黑板上的这个公式来连接,这公式的符号像是我早先提到过的四角形的鑽石方块。事实上,这个符号生动地被铸造,为了将能够被孤立出来的东西,跟本身连接在一起,端看你要有用垂直或水平的切割方式。

Separated by a vertical stroke, it represents a double relation which can be read in the first place as greater (>) or lesser (
S1

$

由於被垂直的横杆切割,它代表一个双重关系,首先可以被阅读为生命的第一主体大於或小於被禁制的主体。

S, in so far as it takes the place of the subject, only functions for another signifier.

被禁制的主体,由於取代了原有的生命主体,只有代表其它意符时,才发挥功能。

Urverdrangung, of primal repression, is the following: what a signifier represents for another signifier. It does not bite on anything, it constitutes absolutely nothing, it accommodates itself to an absolute absence of Dasein.

原初的压抑如下:一个意符代表对於另外一个意符的关系。它並没有紧紧咬住任何东西,它也完全没有组成任何东西。它接纳自己进入存在的绝对空无中。

For around sixteen centuries, at least, the Egyptians hieroglyphs remained as solitary as they were
uncomprehended in the desert sands. It is clear and it has always been clear for everyone, that this meant that each of the signifiers cut into stone at least represented a subject for the other signifiers. If it were not so, no one would ever even have taken this to be writing! It is not at all necessary that writing should mean something for anyone at all, for it to be writing, and for it to manifest, as such, that each sign represents a subject for the one that follows it.

至少经过大约十六个世纪,埃及的象形文字始终如同它们在荒凉的沙漠里,有着无法受人理解的孤单。显而易见的,每个人也始终明白,这意味着,被切割到石头里的每个意符,都代表着一个生命的主体,对於其它的意符。假如不是这样,本来没有人会将象形文字认为是一种书写。对於任何人,书写本身根本不需要有任何的意义,才能够让书写成为书写,或让书写公开於世,因为每一个符号就代表一个生命的主体,对於跟随它而来的另一个生命的主体,产生关系。

If we call that Urverdrangung it means that we are admitting that it appears to us to be in conformity with
experience, to think about what happens – namely, that a subject emerges in the state of barred subject – as something which comes from a locus in which it is supposedly inscribed, into another locus in which it in going to be inscribed anew.

假如我们称呼它为原初的压抑,那意味着,我们承认,我们觉得它跟我们的经验相一致,它思考到我们所发生的事,换句话说,生命的主体以被禁制的主体的状态出现,作为来自铭记它的存在的轨迹的某件东西,然后进入它将重新要被铭记的另外一个轨迹。

Namely, exactly in the same fashion in which I structured, formerly, the function of metaphor in to far as it is the model of what happens as regard the return of the repressed:
S1 –> $
— / —
$ –>- s

换句话说,跟我以前建构比喻的功用的方式一模一样,因为它就是被压抑的东西反扑回来,所发生的模式:第一生命的主体,被横杆垂直切割后,总是大於被禁制的主体。

In the same way, it is in the measure that with respect to this primary signifier, and we are going to see what it is, the barred subject that it abolishes comes to emerge at a place to which we are going to be able today to give a formula which has not yet been given: the barred subject, as such, is what represents for a signifier – this signifier from it has a arisen – a sense.

同样地,关於原初的意符,我们将根据被禁制的幅度,看出那是什麽,它所废弃的被禁制的主体会出现在,我们今天将能够给予公式的地方。这个公式,我现在第一次提供:被禁制的主体,就本身而言,它代表对於另一个意符的关系,它来自那个意符而产生意义。

(11) By “sense” I understand exactly what I made you understand at the beginning of one year in the formula: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. Which can be translated into French by the following, which depicts admirably the ordinary order of your cogitations: “Des idees vertement fuligineuses s’assoupissent avec fureur”.

所谓「意义」,在某一年的开始,我确实了解到我曾经使你们了解的,使用以下的公式:「生涩的点子蠢蠢欲动地沉睡」。这个公式生动地描述你们一般的认知过程,能够被翻译成为下面的法文,:”Des idees vertement fuligineuses s’assoupissent avec fureur”.

This, precisely, for want of knowing that they are all addressed to this signifier of the lack of the subject that a certain first signifier becomes, once the subject articulates his discourse. Namely – as all psychoanalysts glimpsed clearly enough, even though they were not able to say anything worthwhile about it – namely, the o-object which, at this level, fulfills precisely the function that Frege distinguishes from sign under the name of Bedeutung. The o object is the first Bedeutung, the first referent, the first reality, the Bedeutung which remains because it is, after all, all that remains of thinking at the end of all the discourses.

一但生命的主体清楚表达他的真理论述,某一个最初的意符确实变成这样, 因为他不知道,他们的表达都是针对着生命主体的这个欠缺。换句话说,如所有的精神分析师足够清楚瞥见的,即使他们不能够说出任何有价值的东西,关於这个小客体。在这个层次上,小客体确实填补的这个功用,福瑞杰以「意义」的名义,将它跟符号区别不同。小客体就是第一个意义,第一个指称,第一个现实界,这个小客体始终是所有的真理论述结束之后,思想的残余物,畢竟,它本来就是这样的残余物。

Namely, what the port can write without knowing that he is saying when he addresses himself to “his mother Intelligence from whom all sweetness flows”: “what is this neglect that allows her milk to dry up?”
Namely, also, what remains of so many thoughts dispensed in the form of a pseudo-scientific hotchpotch that one can also call by its name, as I have long done, about part of analytic literature, and which is called shit. On the admission, moreover, of the authors! I mean except for a tiny failure of reasoning about the function of the o object, one of them can very well articulate that there is no other support for the castration complex than what is modestly called “the anal object”.

换句话说,什麽意义能够被书写,而自己並不知道,他正在自言自语地说:「他的母亲的智慧,一切的甜美从那里流露。」「是怎样的疏忽,使她的奶水乾涸?」换句话说,这麽多思想的残余物被使用,以虚假的科学的大雜燴形式,我们甚至还可以直称其名,如我一向所做的,关於精神分析学的一些论述,都可以被称之为狗屎。而且,我们还可以将作者的名字公布出来!我的意思是,关於这个小客体的功用,除了推理逻辑不通外,其中有一篇很清楚地表达,对於阉割情结,除了一般俗称的「肛门客体」外,别无其它意义。

This is not then a pinpointing coming from a pure and simple judgement, but much more the necessity of an articulation, the simple statement of which ought to give us pause. Since, after all, it is not formulated by the least qualified writers, and since it will be, in fact, this year, our method, in formulating the logic of the phantasy, to show where, in analytic theory, it has tripped up. I have not, after all, named this author whom many of you know.

我不过是从一篇内容简单,但是雄心不小的文章中,举其荦荦大者。这个单纯的陈述应该让我们停下来三思,畢竟表述这篇文章的作者群,名气来头都还不小。事实上,这将是今年当我们说明这个幻见的逻辑时,我们要採用的方法,用来显示,在精神分析学的理论,它曾经在哪里犯下错误。畢竟,我还姑隐作者的姓名,其实我不说,你们许多人也知道。

Let it be clearly understood that the flaw in reasoning is still reasoned, namely, examinable (arraisonable), but not necessarily so. And the o-object in question can in a certain article show itself quite nakedly while not being appreciated by him. This is what we will have occasion to show in certain texts, after all, which I do not see why, as a kind of practical work, I should not soon distribute rather generally to you, if I have enough at my disposal, which have been given to my function of metaphor from being admitted, (I mean among those of which I have just given you the least ambiguous example) by confusing it with anything whatsoever that makes of it a sort of proportional relation.

让我们打开天窗说亮话,推理虽然有瑕疵,依旧是可以推论,换句话说,还是可以加以审查,但是事实上未必是这样。这个受到置疑的小客体,在某一篇文章中,昭然若揭,虽然作者自己並没有觉察到。这就是我们将在某些文本中,有机会予以揭露出来,当着是一种实际验证的例子,我觉得並无不可。假如我有足够运用的资料,我不久会散发给你们。那些文章将我对於小客体的比喻的功用,跟任何具有某种均称关系的东西混为一谈,使得我的原意无法让人明白(我指的是,我刚刚给你们的那些一清二楚的例子)

When I wrote that substitution – the fact of grafting a signifier substituted for another signifier into the signifying chain – was the source and origin of all meaning, what I articulated is correctly interpreted in the form in which, today, through the emergence of this barred subject as such, I gave you the formula. Which requires of us the task of giving it its logical status, but to demonstrate to you right away the example of the urgency of such a task, or even of its necessity, note that the confusion was made in this four fold relation:
S1 ———> S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S —->- s
当我书写那个代换公式:衔接一个意符代替另一个意符,成为意符的锁链,这个事实是所有意义的资源跟起源,我所要表达的,可用一个公式来正确解释。今天,透过这个被禁制的生命主体的出现,我给你们这个公式。这个公式要求我们给予这个小客体它的逻辑的地位。但是为了马上跟你们证明,这个任务的急迫性,或它的需要性的例子,请注意一下,在底下这个四个重叠的关系,所造成的混乱:人作为第一个生命主体,蜕变成为主体,这个主体,再蜕变成为一个被意符化的主体。

(the S1, the two S’s and the small s of the signified) with this relation of proportion in which one of my
interlocutors, M. Perelman, the author of a theory of argumentation, promoting once again an abandoned rhetoric, articulates metaphor, seeing in it the function of analogy, and that it is from the relation of one signifier to another in so far as a third reproduces it by giving rise to an ideal signified that he grounds the function of metaphor. To which I replied, at the appropriate rime. It is only from such a metaphor that there can emerge the formula that was given, namely: S1 over small s of meaning enthroned above a first register of inscription of which the Underdrawn of which the Unterdruckt, of which the other register substantiating the unconscious, is supposed to be constituted by the strange relation of the signifier to another signifier, and we are told that it is from there that language takes its ballast:

(这个第一位生命的主体,这两位主体,还有被意符化的小主体)使用这种均称的关系,我的对谈者之一,佩惹门先生,辩论理论的作者,再一次推广一个已经被扬弃不用的雄辩术,清楚表达小客体的比喻,在里面看到类比的功用,他将小客体的比喻功用的基础,建立在一个意符跟另一个意符的关系,然后第三个意符繁殖它,而产生一个理想的被意符化的生命的主体。对於这个论点,我在适当的时间回答过。他这样的公式的出现,只是作为小客体的比喻,换句话说,第一个生命的主体,位於被意符化的生命的主体之上,享有最崇高的地位,高於受到压抑的原初意符的铭记之上,以及高於具体表现无意识的另一个意符的铭记之上。这个第一个生命的主体,应该由一个意符跟另一个意符的奇妙的关系所组成。我们知道,语言就是从那里,奠定它的基础。

S1
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S

I think that you now sense that this formula, described as that of “reduced language” (du langage reduit), is based on an error which is to introduce into this four-fold relation the structure of proportionality. It is difficult to see, in fact, what can emerge from it, since, in fact, the relation S/S then becomes rather difficult to interpret. But we do not see in this reference to a reduced language any other plan (which is moreover admitted) than to reduce our formula that the unconscious is structured like a language – which, more than ever, is to be taken literally.

我认为你们已经感觉到,这个公式,被描述为「被化简的语言」的公式,它的基础是一个错误,因为它介绍一个均称对比的结构到这一个四层重叠的关系。事实上,我们很难看出,从这个公式里,什麽会出现,因为事实上,主体与主体的均称对比,变的相当难於解释。但是在他提到一个被化简的语言时时,我们没有看到任何其它一个计划(这是显而易见的),除了化简我们「无意识的结构像一种语言」的公式,更遭糕的,是对它望文生义。

And since it is obvious that today I will not finish the five points that I announced to you, I am nonetheless able to punctuate, for you, the key of the whole structure which reduces an enterprise articulated in this way – precisely at the beginning of the little collection I spoke about to you earlier which concerns the turning point in my relations with my audience that was constituted by the Congress of Bonneval – to futility. It is erroneous to structure in this way on a so-called myth of reduced language any deduction of the unconscious, for the following reason: it is of the nature of each and every signifier not to be able in any case to signify itself.

显而易见,今天我将无法讲完我对你们宣布的这五点。可是,我仍然要跟你们强调,重点在於,他用这种方式表达的企图,对於我所提出的像语言一般的无意识的整个结构而言,将是徒劳无功。确实就在早先我跟你们谈到的这个小小的集会的开始,这个集会关系到我跟我的听众的关系,这些听从的成员大多来自波尼伯的精神分析师协会。根据所谓化简的语言的神话的这种方式,来架构任何无意识的化简都是错误的,理由如下:每一个意符的特性,就是,无论在任何情形之下,都没有办法自己使自己意符化。

It is too late for me to impose on you, in a hurry the writing of this inaugural point for the whole of set theory, which implies that this theory can only function starting from an axiom described as that of specification.

对於这一整套理论,要我从开始的时刻的书写给你们一些概念,即使是青蜓点水式,时间都已经太迟。因为这意味着,只有从一个被描述为「明确」的公理开始,这个理论才能发挥功用。

Namely, that the only interest in making a set function is when there exists another set which can be defined by the definition of certain x’s in the first as freely satisfying a certain proposition. “Freely” means: independently of any quantification: small number or all. The result of this, (I will begin my next lecture with these formulae) the result of this is that by positing any set whatsoever, by defining in it the proposition that I indicated as specifying x’s in it, as being simply that x is not a member of itself. – that which, as regards what interests us, namely, for the following, which is necessary once one wishes to introduce the myth of a reduced language that there is a language which is not one, namely, which constitutes, for example the totality of signifiers.
换句话说,我们唯一有興趣,要使一组的集合运作,是因为有另外一组的集合存在。这另外的一组集合的定义,是根据第一组的集合的许多未知点的定义,可以自由地满足某一个建议。「自由地」的意思是:独立於任何的数量化,不论是小数量,或全部数量。结果是,(下一次的演讲,我将先以这些公式开始),这样的结果是:以提出任何一组的集合,以在这组的集合里,定义我所指出的建议,当着是在里面标明许多未知点,当着是每一个未知点並不是它自己的一份子。我们感到興趣的是,所以会产生这种需要,是因为我们希望介绍一个简化的语言的神话,那个神话就是:有一种並不是个体生命的语言,换句话说,这种语言组成意符的整体性。

What is proper to the totality of signifiers. I will show it to you in detail, involves the following as necessary – if we simply admit that the signifier cannot signify itself – involves the following as reduced language, simply because of the fact that language cannot constitute a chosen set; in other words: that there is no Universe of discourse.

什麽是意符的整体性的本体位置?我将会详细地指给你们看,它牵涉到以下的需要:只要我们承认,意符自己无法使自己被意符化,它牵涉到以下作为被简化的语言,仅仅因为这个事实:语言本身无法形成一个被选择的集合,换句话说,没有真理论述的宇宙存在。

For those who may have had some difficulty in understanding what I have just formulated, I will recall simply the following which I already said at the appropriate time: that the truths that I have just stated are simply those which appeared in a confused fashion at the naive period of the establishment of set theory in the form of what is wrongly called Russell’s paradox – because it is not a paradox, it is an image – the catalogue of all the catalogues which do not contain themselves. What does that mean? Either it contains itself or it contradicts its definition, or it does not contain itself and in that case it foils in its mission. This is not at all a paradox. One has only to declare that in making such a catalogue one cannot take things all the way, and for good reasons…

对於无法理解我刚刚所说明的那些人,我仅仅提醒一下,以下我曾经在某个适当时刻说过的事实:我刚刚所陈述的那些真理的论述,就在数学集合理论刚建立的初期,混乱出现的真理的论述,形式上一般被错误地称之为「罗素的矛盾律」。可是,它並不是一个矛盾律,它是一个意象,一个没有包括自己本身的一切目录的目录。那是什麽意思?它要就是包括自己,要不然就是跟自己的定义相矛盾,要不然就是它没有包括它自己,但是在那种的情形下,它会使自己的任务功败垂成。这根本不是什麽矛盾律。我们所需要做的就是宣称:当我们在制作这样一个目录时,我们无法收容所有的目录,这样的理由就够充分了。

But, that I earlier gave you the statement of, in the formula that in the Universe of discourse there is nothing that contains everything, this is something which properly speaking encourages us to be particularly prudent here as regards the handling of that is called whole and part, and requires us, at the origin, to distinguish very severely – this will be the object of my next lecture – the One from the totality – which, precisely, I have just refuted, saying that at the level of discourse there is no Universe, which undoubtedly leaves still more in suspense whether we can suppose it to be anywhere else – to distinguish this One from the countable One in so far as, of its nature, it slips away and slides, and can only be the One by repeating itself at least once and closing in on itself, to establish, at the origin, the lack involved the one involved in the establishment of the subject.

但是,如我早先给你们的陈述,以这个公式:在真理论述的宇宙中,没有一样事情包括每一样事情,严格来说,是有某件事情在鼓励我们要特别的谨慎,关於处理所谓整体与部分的问题,它从一开始,就要求我们做严格的区分。这将是我下一次演讲的题目:生命的个体跟整体性。準确地说,我刚刚反驳过了,当我说,在真理论述的层次,没有这样的宇宙存在。无可置疑地,一个更加令我们挂怀的问题是,我们是否能够假定这样的宇宙存在於任何其它一个地方,可以让我们区分这个生命的个体,跟可以计算的生命的个体,因为在特性上,它会不断地滑溜,溜走,重复自己至少一次,然后再将自己封闭,从起源的地方,证实牵涉到主体的建立时的欠缺空洞,这样它才能够成为这个生命的个体。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: