Logic of phantasy 03 Jacques Lacan

Logic of phantasy 03
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 03
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

I am going to try today to trace out for your use some relations that, I would say, are essential and fundamental to secure at the beginning what constitutes our subject this year. I hope that no one is going to object that they are abstract, for the simple reason that this would be a quite improper term, as you are going to see!

今天我将设法追踪一些关系让你们使用,我不妨这样说,这些关系的获得是重要而且基本,在形成我们今年的讲题。我希望没有人会因为他们是抽象而反对,理由很简单,你们後来会看出,这个术语相当不适当。

There is nothing more concrete than what I am going to put forward, even if this term does not correspond to the quality of density which is its connotation for many. It is a matter of making tangible for you one or other proposition like the one that up to now I have only put forward under the appearance of a sort of aphorism, which may have played at one or other turning point of our discourse the role of axiom, such as the following: there is no metalanguage – a formula which has the appearance of being: properly speaking, contrary to everything that is given, if not in the experience, at least in the writings of those who try to ground the function of language.

即使这个术语对於许多人而言,並没有对应於它本身具有的丰富的内涵,我今天将要提出的内容其实再具体不过。我会将一两个命题具体解释,这些命题直到目前我仅仅提出,以一种警语的方式,在我们真理论述的一两个转捩点,这些警语可能曾经扮演定理的角色。例如,「形上语言並不存在」。这个公式具有生命实存的面貌:恰当地说,即使不是在我们精神分析的经验里,至少在许多作者的著作里是这样,他们设法建立语言的功用的基础。这跟它内容所表达的一切恰好相反。

At the very least, in many cases, they show in language some differentiations that they find it good to begin from, starting, for example, from an object-language, in order to construct on this base a certain number of differentiations. The very act of such an operation seems to imply that in order to speak about language one should use something which is not part of it or which, in a way, is supposed to envelope it in an order different to the one that makes it function.

至少在许多例子里,它们使用语言显示一些差异。例如,他们发现,他们最好从一个客观的语言开始,这样他们才能够在这个基础上,建立某些数量的差异。这样一个运作的行动似乎暗示着,为了要谈论一个语言,我们应该使用某件不是语言里面的东西,或是,这个东西在某方面应该涵盖它,但是方式要不同於使它运作的方式。

I believe that the solution of these apparent contradictions which, in short, manifest themselves in discourse, in what is said, is to be found in a function which it seems to me essential to bring out, at least from the angle that I am going to try to inaugurate it today – to bring out and especially for our purposes – because the logic of phantasy, it seems to me, can in no way be articulated without reference to what is involved, namely, to something that at least in order to announce it I pinpoint under the term of writing (l’ecriture).

总之,在真理论述里,或在我们的内容理,这些矛盾的显现是显而易见的,它们的解决方法,能够被找到,以我认为是很重要的一种功用的表达,至少从今天我要开展的一个角度来表达,特别针对我们的目的,因为我觉得,假如不提到所牵涉到的内容,假如不提到我以书写的术语所强调的内容,幻见的逻辑根本无法表达。

Naturally, this is not to say, for all that, that it is what you know under the ordinary connotations of this word. But if I choose it, it is because it must have some relation with what I have to state.

当然,这並不是要说,儘管如此,在这个术语的一般内涵里,这就是你们所知道的。但是,我既然选择它,那是因为它跟我所要陈述的内容,一定会有一些关系。

A point, precisely, on which we are going to have to operate ceaselessly today is the following: that it is not the same thing, after we have said it, to write it or indeed to write that one is saying it. Because the second operation, essential to the function of writing, precisely from the angle, from the point of view whose importance I am going to show today, as regards our most appropriate references in this year’s subject, this, I am saying, immediately and from the beginning presents itself with paradoxical consequences.

确实地,今天我们将要不停地论述的这一点内容如下:「我们说过的话,跟我们将它书写下来,或书写下我们正在说的话,並不是相同的一件事。」因为第二个论述,对於书写的功用是很重要,确实从这个角度,从我今天将要显示其重要性的这个观点,关於今年的演讲的题目,我们最适当的内容。我正在表达的意思是,立刻从一开始,这个内容会以互相矛盾的结果,来呈现自己。

After all, why not, in order to alert you, start from what I already presented before you from a particular angle? Without you being able to say, I believe, that I am repeating myself. It is sufficiently in the nature of the things that are discussed here, that they emerge from some angle, from some line that breaks through a surface to which we are forced to keep by the simple fact of speaking – that they should appear at some moment before they really take on their function. Here, then, I remind you, is what I one day wrote on the board and which someone, after all, who is here will render me the service of writing in my place, so that I do not have to immerse myself to the level of your dear heads.

畢竟,为了要警告你们,我们为何不从我已经呈现在你们面前的内容开始,从一个特别的角度?我相信,这样可以避免让你们说,我老是在重复我说的话。我们在这里所讨论的内容的特性,它们是从某个角度出现,从我们不得不以言说的简单的动作的表面被突破的某一行,它们应该在某个时刻出现,这样它们才真的能发挥它们的功用。因此,我提醒你们,这就是有一天我书写在黑板上的内容,这个内容,在现场的某个人,曾经代替我将它们謄录下来,这样我就不需要不厌其烦地讲。

Madame! Take this little piece of chalk, make a rectangle, write …no! make it very big almost as big as the board, there you are! Write: 1, 2, 3, 4, on the first line. No! inside the frame … 1, 2, 3, 4, and then write: the smallest whole number which is not written on the board, beneath 1, 2, 3, 4 (laughter). No, write the sentence: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”.

这位女士!拿着这一支小小的粉笔,画一个长方形,书写、、、不是这样!将它画得跟这个黑板一样大。开始画!在第一行,书写:1、2、3、4。不对!要在框架里。1、2、3、4,然后书写:在黑板上没有书写到的最小的整数,在1、2、3、4 底下。不是这样,请写这个句子:「没有书写在这个黑板上的最小的整数」。

This could have been presented in a different form, namely – instead of doing me the service which has been done, and I thank the person who was good enough to write this sentence that you see written out – that I could, without writing it, have asked you or even, if you wish, made a little person from those mouths there would emerge what they call in comic strips a bubble: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”.

我们本来可以用不同的方式来呈现,换句话说,不是用刚才帮忙我的方式。我感谢那位女士好心帮我书写这个句子,你们看到句子被书写出来,我自己没有书写,但是我本来能够要求你们,或甚至要求你们那里的某一个人,用嘴巴像连环漫画里所谓的喃喃自语:「没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数」。

In which case you would all have been in agreement, and I would not have contradicted you, that it is the number -. It is clear that from the moment that this sentence is written: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”, the number 5 – being written, there by this very fact – is excluded. You have only to search, then, whether the smallest whole number which is not written on the board might not, perchance, be the number 6, and you find yourself with the same difficulty, namely, that from the moment that you pose the question, the number 6 as the smallest whole number which is not written on the board, is written on it and so on.

在这种情形之下,你们大家本来都会同意,我本来也不会反驳你们说,显而易见的,从「没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数」这个句子被书写开始,就是这个数字,五 ,这个数字,虽然被书写,事实上,它被排除在外。你们只要研究一下,没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数,有没有可能是六,你们就会发现你们会遭遇到相同的困难。从你们提出这个问题开始,六这个数字,作为没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数,事实上是已经是被书写,等等

This, like many paradoxes, is only of interest, of course, for what we want to make of it. What follows is going to show you that it was, perhaps, not useless to introduce the function of writing from this angle from which it may present some enigma to you. It is, let us say, properly speaking, a logical enigma and it is no worse a way than any other to show you that there is, in any case, some close relation between the apparatus of writing and what one can call logic.

像许多的矛盾律一样,这个矛盾律会引起我们的興趣,当然是因为我们想要去解释它。以下就是我要显示个你们,我要从对於你们可能会是一个谜团的这个角度,跟你们介绍书写的功用,因为这样做並非没有用途。容我们说,恰当地说,这是一个逻辑的谜团,这是一个颇为恰当的方法给你们显示:无论在任何情况,书写的工具跟我们所谓的逻辑之间,有着某些紧密的关系。

This also deserves to be recalled, at the start, at the moment at which – the majority of those who are here, I think, having it adequate notion of it, even for those who have done this can serve as a point to hang onto – at which to recall that undoubtedly, if there is something which characterises the new state, undoubtedly, undoubtedly, undoubtedly new … – in this sense that they are far from and in no way able to be contained, to be reabsorbed within the framework of what was called classical or again traditional logic – the new developments, I am saying, of logic are entirely linked to these operations of writing.

这个也应该值得让我们回想一下,在开始的时刻,你们在场的大多数人,曾经有过充分的概念,甚至那些有够这样的概念的人,可以将它充当一个紧咬不放的论点。在那个时刻,你们无可置疑地回想一下,是否有某件东西能够表现这个新的状态的特色,这个状态无可置疑是新的状态。在这样的意涵下,它们根本就无法被包含在里面,无法重新被吸收到所谓的古典或传统的逻辑的这个架构里,我正在说的是:逻辑的这些新的发展,跟书写的这些运作,有密切的关系。

So let us pose a question. Ever since I have been speaking about the function of language, ever since, in order to articulate what is involved in the subject of the unconscious, I constructed – I must say that it was necessary for me to do it stage by stage, and before an audience of whom the least one can say is that they needed to be coaxed in order to listen – that I constructed the graph which is designed to order, precisely what, in the function of the word, is defined by this field, this field which the structure of language requires: it is properly what is called the paths of discourse or again what I called the defiles of the signifier.

所以,让我们提出一个问题。自从我一直在谈论语言的功用以来,自从为了表达无意识的生命主体所牵涉到的内涵,我建构这个图表,我必须说,我有需要按部就班地来,对於听众循循善诱,这样他们才会倾听,我建构这个图表,用来规范这个领域以这个字的功用所定义的秩序,因为语言的结构需要这个领域:这确实是所谓的「真理论述的途径」,或者是我所称为的「意符的污染」。

Somewhere in this graph there is inscribed the letter capital O on the right, on the lower line: if someone would rub this out I could rapidly draw the whole graph for those who do not know it. This small o (sic) that in a sense one can identify to the locus of the Other, which in fact is the locus where there is produced everything that can be described as a statement in the broadest sense of the term, namely, what constitutes what I, incidentally, called the treasury of the signifier – which is not
limited, in principle, to the words in the dictionary.

在图表的某个地方,铭记着这个大写字母O在右边,在较低的那一行:假如有某个人将它擦掉,我可以很迅速地将整个图表画出来,替那些没有看到的人。这个小客体o,在某个意义上,我们能够将它辨认为跟大它者的轨迹。这个大者事实上是一个轨迹,廣义来说,每一件能够被描述为陈述的东西,换句话说,组成我刚好称之为意符的宝库,它们运作的轨迹。这个意符的宝库,原则上,並不局限於字典里的单字。

When, precisely, correlatively to the construction of this graph, I began to speak about the witticism, taking things from the angle, which perhaps appeared the most surprising and the most difficult for my listeners at that time, but which was precisely indispensable to avoid any confusion. The non-sensical feature – not senseless but close to this operation that English defines extremely well, makes resonate under the term of nonsense – that exists in the witticism; whose kinship, after all, in order to make understood the dimension that it was a matter of bringing out, I then showed – at least at the level of reception, of tympanic vibration – the kinship it has with what was, for us, at a testing time, the personal message.

当我开始谈到机智语,确实的,它跟这个图表的建构有相对关系,从这个角度来看事情。对於我当时的听众而言,机智语是最令人驚奇,也最难於令人了解,但是确实是非要用不可,以免引起混肴。这个存在於机智语里的「无为而治」的特色,不是没有意义,而是靠近英语以「无为而治」的术语底下,发挥得最为为淋漓尽致。它有一个相关语,我不妨显示出来,帮助大家的了解,至少大家比较能接受,那就是耳膜的震动,在测试的时候,它会传递「个人的讯息」。

I alluded to the personal message – namely, every statement, in fact, in so far as it is cut up “non-sensically” – the last time, by recalling the celebrated: “Colourless green ideas, etc”. The totality of statements then – I am not saying of propositions – also forms part of this Universe of discourse which is situated in capital O.

我提到这个个人的讯息,换句话说,事实上是每一个陈述,,当它被「无为而治地」被切割粉粹,如上一次,我们回想起那著名的「黯然无色的生涩点子,等等」。陈述(我不是指它的命题)的整体性,也形成定位在大写字母o ,也就是大它者的真理论述的宇宙的一部分。

The question which is posed and which is properly a question of structure, the one which gives its sense to the fact that I say that the unconscious is structured like a language, which in my stating it is a pleonasm, since I identify structure to this “like a language”, in the structure, precisely, that I am going to try today to make function before you.

被提出的问题,适当地说,是一个结构的问题。这个问题使我所说的这个事实具有意义:无意识的结构像一个语言。在我陈述的时候,它是一句重复冗语的句子,因为我将结构比喻为「像一个语言」。準确地说,这个结构,就是我今天要在你们面前,发挥的题目。

What is involved in this Universe of discourse, in so far as it implies this operation of the signifier? In so far as it defines these who dimensions of metaphor – in as much as the chain can always graft itself (se enter) with another chain along the path of the operation of substitution – in so far as on the other hand, is its essence, it signifies this sliding which comes from the fact that no signifier belongs properly permits this sea (mer) of variations in what constitutes meanings – this essentially moving and transitory order, where nothing, as I said at one time, can be guaranteed except from the function of what I called in a metaphorical form: buttoning points (points de capiton) – today, it is this Universe of discourse that it is a matter of questioning, starting from this single axiom regarding which it is a matter of knowing what it may specify within this Universe of discourse.

当这个真理论述暗示着意符的运作,它会牵涉到些什麽呢?它定义着比喻的这些向度,这个锁链总是会连接到另一个锁链,沿着代替的运作的途径。在另一方面,它会牵涉到它的本质。它将这个滑动给予意符化,这个滑动来自这个事实:没有一个意符有固定的归属,每个意符在形成意义的内容里,它容许各种的千变万化,基本上,它的秩序常常瞬间流动。如同有一次我所说的,没有一件事能够被保证,除了从我使比喻的形式所称的功用:缝合点。今天,就是这个真理论述的宇宙受到质疑,从这一个单一的定理。
关於这个定理,我们要知道的是,在真理论述的宇宙里,它指明出什麽?

An axiom which is one that I put forward the last time: that the signifier – this signifier that we have, up to now, defined by its function of representing a subject for another signifier – this signifier, what does it represent faced with itself, with its repetition as signifying unit? This is defined by the axiom that no signifier – even if it is, and very precisely when it is, reduced to its minimal form, the one that we call the letter – can signify itself.

上一次,我提出这麽一个定理:意符,我们迄今所拥有的意符,是根据它代表一个主体对於另一个意符的功用。这个意符,当它面临自己,以自己的重复,作为意符的单位的时候,它代表着什麽呢?这就是这个定理所定义的:没有一个意符能够使自己被意符化,即使它被简化到它最渺小的形式,或事实上,它已经被简化成为我们所称为的仅是一个「字母」的代号。

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: