Logic of Phantasy 48 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 48
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Lacan Seminar 14:
TheLogic of Fantasy 12
Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

I pronounce the term at the very moment that it is going to be a matter taking our bearings about what is involved in this sublimation.

我宣布「昇华」这个术语,就在它的内涵将会影响到我们的动见瞻观。

Freud, even though he in no way developed it, for the same reasons which render the developments that I added to it necessary, Freud affirmed, in accordance with the mode of procedure which is that of his thinking, which consists – as someone else said, Bossuet, first name Jacques-Benigne – which consists in holding firmly to the two ends of the chain. Firstly, sublimation, is zielgehemnt, and, naturally, he does not explain to us what that means! I already tried to mark for you the distinction already inherent in this term of zielgehemmt. I took my references in english, as being more accessible: the difference between the aim and the goal. Say it in French.

佛洛伊德根本没有探讨它,这正是我非得要从事这样的探讨的理由。不过他做过这样的肯定,当他要调和他的思想模式。这个思想的模式,如另一个人,亚克、边尼拿所说的,在於坚定地掌握这个锁链的两端。第一、昇华是一种「压抑的满足」,当然,他並没有解释那是什麽意思!我已经替你们将「压抑的满足」这个术语本质上的区别标示出来。我採用英语的指称,这样它比较能让人接受:「目的」跟「目标」有所不同。你们用法语说看看。

It is less clear because we are forced to take words already in use in philosophy. We can, all the same, try to say la fin, it is the weakest word, because it is necessary to re-integrate into it the whole journeying which is what is involved in the aim, the target. There is the same distance between aim and goal as there is in German between Zweck and Ziel. We are not told that Zweckmassigleit, sexual finality, is in any way gehemmt, inhibited, in sublimation. Zielgehemmt, and it is precisely here that the word is well made to detain us … what we gargle with this so called “object” of the blessed genital drive, is precisely what can without any inconvenience be extracted, totally inhibited, absent, in what nevertheless belongs to the sexual drive, without it losing anything of its capacity as Befriedigung, in terms of satisfaction.

法文则比较难於区分,因为我们不得不接纳哲学里的习惯用法。我们仍然会说「目的」,那个语气最弱,因为我们必须将它合并到为了「目标」所牵涉到的旅途。「目的」与「目标」之间的差異,就像德语的「Zweck」
「Ziel.」的差異。他们不会告诉我们,「性的最高境界」,有任何的「压抑的昇华」。确实就在这里,这个字让我们困惑,当我们说出这个幸福的性器官欲望驱力的所谓「客体」,会口词含混不清,但是确实没有什麽难於啟口,完全地压抑,或避而不谈。儘管它属於性的欲望驱力,它仍然保持它的「满足」一词的崇高的能力。

You will see in the second of these articles – (there are three texts here, but what I am (7) calling the second, is the second that I named earlier, that of Heinz Hartmann. The first that I named being that of Fenichel, and Alexander is only a reference by Fenichel) – I mean the point designated by Fenichel, the major point of the introduction of the term acting-out in psychoanalytic articulation. Consult the article by Heinz Hartmann on sublimation. It is examplary. It is examplary of what, in our eyes, is not in any way obsolete in the position of the psychoanalyst.

你们在第而篇文章中可以看出(总共有三篇,但我正在说的第二篇,是我早先说过的第二篇,海因、哈特门的文章。第一篇是费尼奇的文章,亚里山大的文章只是费尼奇提到它)。我的意思是,费尼奇指明的那一点,精神分析表的「积极行动」引论的主要点。请参照海因、哈特门的论昇华。那是一篇典范的文章。依我们的看法,从精神分析师的立场,它的典范没有丝毫过时。

The fact is that the approach to what he is dealing with, taking responsibility for a thinking, always drives him back in some respect to one of these two terms that I will designate in the most temperate way as platitude. And everyone knows that for a long time, I designated as its the most eminent representative, Mr. Fenichel. May he rest in peace! His writings have for us the very great value of being undoubtedly the very scrupulous gathering together of everything that can emerge as holes in experience. All that is lacking at the place of these holes is the necessary question mark. As regards Heinz Hartmann and the fashion in which he sustains – for some fourteen or fifteen pages, if I remember correctly – with an interrogative accent the problem of sublimation, I think that it cannot escape anyone who comes to it with a fresh mind, that such a discourse, the one I am asking you to consult in the text, designating for you where it is, where you can easily and it, is properly speaking a lying discourse.

事实是,接近他正在处理的内涵,替一种思想负起责任,总是会驱使他肃然起敬地回到这两个术语之一,容我冒昧地说,那两个术语已经是陈腔滥调。大家都知道长久以来,我指明费尼奇先生,充当它最杰出的代表。但愿他欣慰安息!对於我们而言,他的着作的价值,无可置疑地,在於他小心翼翼地收集精神分析学所谓的「空洞」出现的内容。这些「空洞」位置的欠缺处,必然会是一个问号。关於海因、哈特门及他研究的方式,大约有十四或十五页。假如我记得没有错,他对於「昇华」的问题,保持置疑的语调。我认为,带着好奇心理接近「昇华」的人,无法逃避这个问题。这样的论述,我要求你们去参照的文本,会跟你们指出问题在哪里。你们很容易发现出来,严格来说,那是一篇不诚实的论述。

The whole apparatus of a so-called “energetics”, around which there is proposed to us something which consists precisely in inverting the approach to the problem, by questioning sublimation – in so far as it is first proposed to us as being identical, and not displaced, with respect to something which is, properly, (with the quotation marks that the use of the word drive imposes at this level) all the same: the “sexual drive” – overturning this and questioning in the most punctuated manner what is involved in sublimation, as being linked to what is proposed to us.

一个所谓「生命精力学」的整个仪器,环绕这个仪器,展现出某件确实就是「翻转」问题的方法,它先置疑「昇华」,因为它首先被提出当着「性的欲望驱力」的相等物,但是没有替代它(欲望驱力这个用词,在这个层次,用问号保留),推翻这一点,然后以誇张的方式置疑「昇华」牵涉到的内涵,当着是跟我们提出的内涵有关。

Namely, that the functions of the ego – which in the most improper manner has been posited as being autonomous, even as coming from a different source to what is called, in this confused language, an “instinctual” source, as if there had ever been in Freud a question of that! – to know, then, how these completely pure functions of the ego, related to the measure of reality, and providing it, as such, in an essential fashion – re-establishing here then at the heart of analytic thinking, what the whole of analytic thinking rejects – that there is this isolated, direct, autonomous, identifiable relation, a relation of pure thinking to a world that it is supposed to be able to approach, without itself being completely shot through by the function of desire – how can it happen that there can come from what is then elsewhere, the instinctual focus, some reflection or other, some painting or other, some colouring or other, that is called, textually, “the sexualisation of the ego functions”!

换句话说,自我的功用,曾经以最不适当的方式被提出,当着是具有自主权,甚至当着来自一个不同的来源,语义含混不清的所谓的「本能的」来源,好像在佛洛伊德里,曾经有过那样的问题!自我的这些完全纯净的功用,跟现实界有几分相关,供应它基本的东西,然后在精神分析思想的核心重建,整个精神分析思想所拒绝的架构:这个孤立、直接、具有自主权、可辨认的关系,其实是纯净思想跟一个世界的关系,那个世界,应该是能够接近某种的反映、某种的画面、某种的彩色,以文本来说,就是「自我功用的性化」!这种关系没有透过欲望的功用发生,就能完全展开,问题是,从别的地方,从本能的轨迹,怎麽可能会发生这样的反映、这样的画面、这样的颜色?

(8) Once introduced like this the question becomes literally insoluble, or, in any case, excluded forever from everything that is proposed to the praxis of analysis.

(第八)一旦以这个方式被介绍,这个问题变成实质上难於解决,要不然就是永久被排除在精神分析学本体的现象之外。

To approach what is involved in sublimation, it is necessary for us to introduce this first term without which (moyennant quoi) it is impossible for us to find our bearings in the problem, which is the one from which I started the last time in defining the act: the act is signifying. It is a signifier which is repeated, even though it happens in a single gesture, for topological reasons which make possible the existence of the double loop created by a single cut. It is the establishment of the subject as such. Namely, that, from a true act, the subject emerges different.

为了接近昇华的内涵,我们需要介绍这第一个术语「回报」。假如没有这个术语,我们不可能在问题中,找到立场。上一次我从这个问题开始定义「行动」:行动正在意符化。这是一个被重复的意符,即使它发生在一个单一的姿态,地形上的理由,使得单一切割的双重圈套的存在成为可能。生命的主体就是这样被建立。换句话说,从一个真实的行动,生命的主体出现的面目完全不同。

Because of the cut, its structure is modified. And, fourthly, the correlate of misrecognition, or if you wish again, his Reprasentanz in the Vorstellung, to this act, is the Verleugnung. Namely, that the subject never recognises it in its truly inaugural report, even when the subject is, as I might say, capable of having committed this act.

因为这个切割,它的结构被修改。然后,第四个动作,相关的误认,在「交往」中,误认这个行动的「代表」是「否认」。换句话说,生命的主体从来没有在它真正的开始的报告中,认出这个交往,即使当主体能够从事这个行动,我不妨这样说。

Well then, it is here that it would be well for us to notice the following – which is essential for any comprehension of the role that Freud gives to sexuality in the unconscious – for us to remember something that the tongue already gives us, namely, that people speak about the sexual act.

就在这里,我们最好注意:佛洛伊德给予无意识中的性扮演的角色,我们若是要了解,这是很重要,我们要记住语言所带给我们的某件东西:人们谈论性的行动。

The sexual act, this could at least suggest to us – something moreover that is obvious – since, once one thinks about it … in any case, you touch on it right away … the fact is that it is obviously not pure and simple copulation.

这至少给我们一点啟示,这个性的行动是显而易见的,因为一旦你想到它,你立刻就碰触到它。显而易见的,性並不是单纯的生理上的交媾。

The act has all the characteristics of the act as I have just recalled them, as we manipulate it, as it has presented itself to us, with its symptomatic sediments and everything that makes it more or less stick and stumble. The sexual act clearly presents itself as a signifier, firstly, and as a signifier which repeats something. Because it is the first thing that was introduced to it in psychoanalysis.

这个行动拥有我刚刚提醒过的所有的特癥,当我在处理它,因为它呈现在我们面前,带着它病癥的痕迹,及比较不那麽难缠的东西。性的行动清楚地呈现它自己,首先当着是一种意符,当着是重复某件东西的意符。精神分析学首先介绍的东西就是性。

It repeats what? The oedipal scene, of course!

它重复什麽呢?那当然就是伊底普斯情结!

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: