Logic of phantasy 06 Jacques Lacan

Logic of phantasy 06
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 06
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

Here indeed is where there may be situated the phantasy which is properly the poetic phantasy par excellence, the one which obsessed Mallarme: of the absolute Book.

的确,这就是幻见的位置被找到的地方。这个幻见,适当地说,是最完美的诗的幻见,是诗人马拉梅为之沉迷不拔的诗的幻见,是这本绝对真理书的幻见。

It is at this level where things are tied together at the level of the use not of pure signifier, but of the purified signifier, in so far as I say – and that I write that say – that the signifier is here articulated as distinct from any signified and I then see there being outlined the possibility of this absolute Book, whose property would be that it would encompass the whole signifying chain, properly in the following: that it may no longer signify anything. In this, then, there is something that proes to be founded in existence at the level of the Universe of discourse, but (11) we have to suspend this existence on the proper logic which that of the phantasy may constitute, because moreover, it is the only one that can tell us the way in which this region is attached to the Universe of discourse.

就在这个层次,事情紧密地结合在一起,不是在纯粹意符的实用层次,而是在被纯净化的意符的实用层次。就我的言说而言,我以那种方式书写,这个意符在这里被表达,不同於任何被意符化的意符。因此,我看到这个绝对真理书的可能展现的轮廓。这本绝对真理书的属性将是:它会涵盖整个意符的锁链,以下面这个方式:它可能不会使任何东西意符化。因此,在这里,会有某件东西建议要将基础建立在真理论述的宇宙的存在上,但是我们必须将这个存在,悬置於幻见的逻辑的适当的逻辑上,因为就是这个逻辑告诉我们用什麽方式,这个地区跟真理论述的宇宙紧连在一起。

Undoubtedly, it is not excluded that it should enter it, but on the other hand, it is quite certain that it specifies itself in it, not at all by this purification of which I spoke earlier, for purification is not at all possible of what is essential to the Universe of discourse, namely, meaning. And were I to speak to you for another four hours about this absolute Book it would nevertheless remain that everything that I tell you has a sense.

无可置疑地,意符应该进入真理论述的宇宙,这一点並没有被排除。但是在另一方面,相当确定的是,意符在里面,明确指明自己。它根本不是依据我早先提到过的纯净化,因为在真理论述的宇宙里,最重要的事情,也就是意义,纯净化根本就不可能。关於这本绝对的真理书,即使我跟你们再多谈四个小时,我告诉你们的这一切,谈的将还是事情要有意义这个事情。

What characterises the structure of this B – in so far as we know where to situate it in the Universe of discourse, inside or outside – is very precisely this feature that A announced earlier, in making for you the circle, simply of this A B C D E, in so far as, by simply closing the chain, there results that each group of four can easily leave outside itself the extraneous signifier, which can serve to designate the group, for the simple reason that it is not represented in it, and that nevertheless the whole chain will be found to constitute the totality of all these signifiers, giving rise to this additional unit, uncountable as such, which is essential for a whole series of structures, which are precisely the ones on which I founded, since the year 1960, my whole operation (operatoire) of identification.

表现B这个意符的结构的特征(我们知道将B这个意符的位置,定义在真理论述的宇宙里,不论是里面,或是外面),确实就是A这个意符早先宣布的这个特征,它为了你而制作成一个仅仅就是ABCDE园圈,仅仅就是封闭这个意符的锁链,造成的结果是,四个集合成一群,很容易将这个外来的意符置身在自己之外。这个外来的意符被用来充当这四个一群的集合的指标,理由很简单,它在四个一群的集合里面,没有被代表。儘管如此,这整个意符的锁链,还是被认为是组成所有这些意符的整体性,而产生这个增加的单位,虽然这个单位本身不可数,这对於一整个的系列的结构是很重要的。这一系列的结构,确实是我自从1960年以来所創建的,这是我的自我认同的全部运作。

Namely, what you find of it, for example, in the structure of the torus, being quite obvious that by buckling on the torus a certain number of circuits, by making operate a series of complete circuits at a cut and by making of them the number that you like (naturally the more of them there are, the more satisfying it is, but the more obscure it is). It is enough to make two of them to see there appearing at the same time this third required for these two to buckle together and, as I might say, for the line to bite its own tail: it will be this third circuit, which is assured by the buckling around the central hole, through which it is impossible not to pass in order for the first two loops to cut one another.

换句话说,你们在里面所发现的,例如,这个圆形突出形状的结构,显而易见,某些数目的园环,扣住这个园形突出形状的结构,使得一系列的完整园环在切口处运作起来,然后使它们成为你喜欢的数目(当然,它们的数目越多,越会令人满意,但是也越会模糊焦点。)假如能够使其中两个园环看出,同时会出现有第三个需要的园环,来让这两个园环扣紧在一起,或如我所说,让这一条线索紧咬住自己的尾巴,这就很足够了。那将就是这个第三园环,绕着中央的空洞扣紧而稳定下来,因为前面的两个环套,若是要切开,不可能不通过这个中央的空洞。

If I am not making any drawing on the board today, it is because in truth – in saying it – I am saying enough about it for you to understand me and also a good deal too little for me to show you that they are at least two paths, at the origin, along which this can be effected and that the result is not at all the same as regards the emergence of this additional One (Un en plus) that I am in the process of speaking to you about.

假如我今天没有在黑板上画任何图表,那是因为事实上,我在说的时候,我已经说的足够让你们了解我,也足够详细让我告诉你们,在起源处,它们至少是两条途径。沿着它们,就会产生这样的结果,而且结果各不相同,关於出现这个额外增加的这一个,我现在正在个你们谈到的。

This simply suggestive indication contains nothing to exhaust the richness of what the least topological study provides us with.

这个仅仅是建议性的指标,並不足以将我对於地形学的些微研究所提供的丰富内涵,一网打尽。

What it is a matter simply of indicating today, is that the specificity of this world of writing is precisely to distinguish itself from discourse by the fact that it can close. And, closing on itself, it is precisely from there that there arises this possibility of a “one” which has a completely different status to that of the one which unifies and encompasses.

我今天只是要指出,书写的这个世界的明确目标,就是要区别它自己,跟真理论述的不同,因为它自己会封闭。在封闭它自己的时候,确实就是在封闭它自己的地方,产生了一个「唯我独尊的个体」的可能性。这个个体享有的地位,完全不同於原先统一及涵盖的那个个体的地位。

But from this “one” which already, from the simple closing – without there being any need to go into the status of repetition, which nevertheless (12) is closely linked to it – just from its closing, it gives rise to what has the status of the additional One, in so far as it is only sustained by writing and that it is nevertheless open, in its possibility, to the Universe of discourse: since it is sufficient, as I pointed out to you, for me to write – but it is necessary that this writing should take place – what I say about the exclusion of this one, this is enough to generate this other plane where there unfolds properly speaking the whole function of logic: the thing being sufficiently indicated to us by the stimulus that logic received, by submitting itself to the simple operation of writing, except for the fact that it still fails to remember that this only reposes on the function of a lack, in the very thing that is written and which constitutes the status, as such, of the function of writing.

但是从这个「唯我独尊的个体」,从这个简单的封闭,没有任何必要进入重复的地位,这个重复确实跟它息息相关,仅仅从它的封闭,它产生了一个额外增加的个体所享有的地位:它仅是依靠书写来维持,却又能将它的可能性,开放给真理论述的宇宙。我曾经跟你们指出过,我只要能够书写,我的愿望就满足了。但是这个书写的动作要发生,关於这个「唯我独尊的个体」必须被排除在外,这样才足够产生这一个其它的平台,展开逻辑的整个运作,严格来说。关於这件事,我们得到的指示,是来自逻辑接收到的刺激反应,以及屈服於书写的简单运作,除了这是事实:它无法记住,它的和谐在於一个「欠缺」的功用,在於被书写的东西,以及组成书写的功用的这个地位的东西。

I am saying simple things to you today, and perhaps this in itself risks making this discourse appear disappointing to you. Nevertheless, you would be wrong not to see that this is inserted into a register of questions which henceforth give to the function of writing something which cannot but have repercussions down to the deepest level of any possible conception of structure. For if the writing of which I speak is only supported from the return buckled onto itself, from a cut (as I illustrated it from the function of the torus), we find ourselves lead to the following: that precisely the most fundamental studies, linked to the progress of mathematical analysis, have put us in a position to isolate in it the function of the edge.

今天我跟你们说的问题比较简单。可能过於简单,会让这个真理论述令人失望。可是你们将会犯错,如果你们没有看出,这是一系列问题的一环,有关书写的功用,它在结构的深奥层次会有所影响。假如我谈论到的这个书写,只是靠着扣紧自己的回转,靠着切割来支持(如我从突出的园环状的举例说明),我们会发现我们会导致以下的结果:确实就是跟数学分析的进步,息息相关的最基本的研究,使我们所处的立场,必须将「边缘」的功用,从里面孤立出来。

Now, once we speak about edge, there is nothing which can make us substantify this function, in so far as here you might improperly deduce that this function of writing is to limit this changeability (mouvant) of which I spoke to you earlier as being that of our thoughts or of the Universe of discourse. Far from it! If there is something which is structured as edge, what it itself limits is in a position to enter in its turn into the edging function. And here indeed is what we are going to have to deal with.

现在,我们一但谈论到「边缘」,没有一样东西使我们能够将这个功用,具体表现出来。你们可能会不恰当地推论说,书写的这个功用,就是要限制这种多变的性质,我早先跟你们谈论到,当着是我们思想,或真理论述的宇宙的多变性质。完全不是这麽一回事!假如有某件东西可以充当「边缘」的结构,它自己的立场,就是要限制自己,在回转到这个边缘的功用时,不要再进入。

Or indeed – and this is the other face on which I intend to end – it is the reminder of what has always been known about this function of the unary stroke (trait unaire)

的确,这是另外一个面貌,我打算要以它作为今天的终结。它让我们想到,长久以来众所皆知的「单一的特征」的功用。

I will end by evoking the 26th verse of a book which I have already made use of, at one time, to begin to make understood what is involved in the function of the signifier: the book of Daniel and in connection with the story about the zouave’s trousers which is designated in it by a word which remains in the state of what is called an hapax and which is impossible to translate unless it was the socks that the characters in question wore.

我将引述一本书的第二十六首诗篇,作为结束今天的演讲。这首诗篇,我有一次曾经使用过,为了让人理解意符的功用会牵涉到什麽。丹尼尔的书,以及跟鄒威的裤子有关的故事。这个故事会被牵扯在里面,是由於一个始终被称为「hapax」的单字,这个单字不可能翻译,除非它指的是里面的人物所穿的袜子。

In the book of Daniel, you already have the theory of the subject that I am presenting to you, and precisely arising at the limit of this Universe of discourse. It is the famous story of the dramatic festival of which we no longer find, moreover, the slightest trace in the annals, but no matter!

在丹尼尔的书里,你已经有人作为生命主体的理论,那是我正在提供给你们,它的出现确实受到真理论述的宇宙的限制。这个热闹的庆典的著名的故事,我们已经找不到丝毫的文献记载,不过,那不重要。

(13) Mene, Mene, for this is how verse 26 is expressed, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin, which is usually transcribed in the famous Mene, Tekel, Parsin. It does not seem useless to me for us to notice that Mene, Mene which means “counted” – as Daniel pointed out in interpreting it to the worried prince – is expressed twice in order to show the most simple repetition of what constitutes counting: it is enough to count up to two for everything that is involved in this additional One, which is the true root of the function of repetition in Freud, to take place and to be marked in the following: except for the fact that contrary to what occurs in set theory, one does not say it.

「计算,计算,」这确实是第二十六诗篇的表达,「计算,计算,铁克,欠缺重量 」这几句通常被书写在这篇著名的「计算,铁克,欠缺重量」。我们如果注意到 Mene Mene 的意思是「计算」,对於理解似乎不无帮助。如丹尼尔对这位焦虑的王子的解释,「计算」一词被表达两次,为了显示组成计算的最简单的重复;牵涉到这个「额外的个体」的每一样东西,计算到两次,也就足够了。这个「额外的个体」,在佛洛伊德的着作里,重复的功用的真实的根源。它运作及被标示如下:除了这个事实,跟集合理论相反,我们不将它说出来。

One does not say the following: that what repetition seeks to repeat is precisely what escapes, because of the very function of the mark, in so far as the mark is original in the function of repetition. That is why repetition takes place, not because the mark is repeated, but that for the mark to provoke the sought-for repetition, it is necessary that on what is sought because the mark marks the first time, this very mark in effaced at the level of what it has marked and that is why what is sought for in repetition, of its nature slips away, allows there to be lost the fact that the mark cannot not be reduplicated, except by effacing, on what is to be repeated, the first mark, namely, to let it slip out of reach.

我们並不说出以下的话:重复之所以设法要重复,确实就是要逃避,因为那个词语的功用,因为那个词语,在重复的功用方面是独创的。重复会发生的原因,不是因为那个词语被重复,而是为了让那个词语激发它所寻求的重复。这是需要的,在那个词语第一次标示的地方,所被寻求的东西,这一个词语在它曾经被标示的层次,被抹除掉。那就是为什麽它要在重复中设法寻求,因为它的特性就是滑溜不定,为了模糊这个事实:这个词语无法被复制,除了以抹除的方式,对於应该被重复的东西,换句话说,为了让第一次的词语,溜滑不定。

Mene, Mene … something in what is rediscovered lacks weight: Tekel. The prophet Daniel interprets it, and interprets it by saying to the prince that he was in effect weighed, but that something is missing there, which is expressed as “Parsin”. This radical lack, this first lack which flows from the very function of the counted as such, this additional One that one cannot count, it is this which constitutes properly this lack to which it is a matter for us of giving its logical function, in order that it should secure what is involved in the final “Parsin”, the bubble, of the empire in question, of the sufficiency of what is closed in on the image of the imaginary whole.

「计算,计算,重新发现的东西,欠缺重量:铁克」。预言家丹尼尔解释它,並且对着王子说话,来解释它,事实上,他的地位是举足轻重,但是这里漏失了某件东西,那件东西被表达为「欠缺重量」。这个强烈的欠缺,这个第一个欠缺,从被「计算的东西」的功用里流露出来,这个「额外的一个个体」是我们无法计算的。就是这个额外的一个个体,适当地组成这个欠缺,现在要由我们来给予它逻辑的功用,为了让欠缺获得它所参与的,在这个最后的「欠缺重量」,这个受到置疑的王国的空洞之字词,在想像界的整个领域的意象,已经被封闭的自给自足的空洞之字词。

Here is exactly the path along which there is brought to bear the effect of the entry of what structures discourse at the most radical point, which is undoubtedly – as I always said and accentuated, to the extent of employing the most popular images for it – the letter that is involved, but the letter in so far as it is excluded, as it is lacking.

确实就是这条途径,沿着它,我们进入真理论述的结构,在最紧张的时刻,所必需承受的影响。我曾经一再说过,並强调,甚至用最通俗的意象来形容它。无可置疑,这个影响就是参与的这个「字词」,但是这个「字词」被排除在外,因为它是一种漏失。

This is indeed about what – that moreover, since today A am making anew irruption into this Jewish tradition – to tell the truth, I had so many things prepared, even to the extent of having come to grips with a little exercise of learning to read Massoretic, a whole work which was in a way put in cold storage because of the fact that I was not able to construct the thematic that I had intended to develop around the Name of the Father – and that moreover, there remains something of all of this and specifically that at the level of history of Creation: “Berechit, Bara, Elohim” the Book begins, namely by a Beth. And it is said that this very letter that we have used today, the capital A, otherwise called Aleph, was not, at the beginning, among those from which there emerged the whole of creation.

确实就是这种情况。因为「阿拉」我,今天从新闯入这个犹太教的传统,坦白说,我事先做了许多预备的功课,甚至殚精竭力地学习阅读犹太教经文的学者马索惹提克的着作,他的全部着作曾经受到世人冷淡地对待,因为我没有能力建构我的主题宣扬它们。环绕「以天父之名」的这个主题,我曾经打算周延建构,可是在创世纪的历史的层次,总是有某件东西,很明确地漏失:创世纪书的开始写着:「Berechit, Bara,Elohim」,换句话说,作者是伯利恒的人。据说,这就是我们今天还在使用的这个「字词」,这个大写的字母「A」,也被称为「阿拉」,在开始的时候,並没有被列入整个宇宙的创造者之一。

(14) This indeed is here to indicate to us, but in a fashion that is in a way turned in on itself, that it is in so far as one of these letters is absent that the others function, but that no doubt it is in its very lack that there resides the whole fruitfulness of the operation.

(十四)这个字词在这里确实是要指示我们,但是指示的方式却又像是自言自语。由於其中一个字词消失不见,其它的字词才能发挥功用,但是无可置疑地,就是由於它本身的这种的欠缺,字词发挥功用的成果反而更加丰硕辉煌。

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: