Logic of Phantasy 78 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 78
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 18
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 18: Wednesday, April 26, 1967

While what was on the board was being cleaned off. I made this drawing for you. This drawing is incomplete. But let us not lose time. It is incomplete in the sense that it is not finished. The same length One that defines the field of small o ought to be reproduced here, but I began it too far out. I already sufficiently indicated to you that these two segments, namely, this one aid the one that is not finished, are, if you wish qualified as One and the Other – the Other in the sense that I ordinarily understand it, the locus of the Other, capital O -the locus where there is articulated the signifying chain and the truth that it supports.

虽然黑板上的东西正在被搽拭掉,我还要再画一个图形。这个图形不完整。但是让我们把握时间。它所以不完整,是因为它没有完全画完。这个相同长度的「一」,定义小客体的领域,应该在这里被复制,但是我开始画的太远。我已经跟你们反复再三地指明,这两个部分,换句话说,这个部分帮忙那个未完成的部分,假如你们希望它们作为这个「一」跟「大它者」的特质。照我们平常的理解,「大它者」的意义,大它者的轨迹,大写字母O作为大它者的轨迹,在那里,意符的锁链跟它所支持的真理,被表达。

These are the terms of the essential dyad in which the drama of the subjectification of sex has to be forged.

这些都是基本的二元对立的术语,性爱的主体化的戲剧必须在那里被铸造。

Namely, what we have been in the process of speaking about for a month and a half Essential, for those who have their ears formed to Heideggerian terms – which, as you will see, are not my privileged references – nevertheless, for those, I mean, not an essential dyad in the sense of what is, but in the sense of what -it has to be said in German – of what west, as Heidegger expresses it, in a fashion, moreover, that is already forced with respect of the German tongue. Let us say, of what operates as sprache, the connotation left to Heidegger, of the term language.

换句话说,大约一个半月来,我们一直在谈论的「基本二元对立」,那些对於海德格的术语耳熟能详的人,你们会看出,这些不是我专用的术语。可是,对於那些人,它的二元对立,並不是实质存在的意义,而是德文才表达得出来的,如海德格所表达的生命的实存,这是德文语言才能突显的意义。让我们说,海德格独有的意涵,「语言」这个术语具有「说话方式」的意涵。

What is at stake is nothing other than the economy of the unconscious, or indeed what is commonly called primary process.

岌岌可危的,道道地地就是这无意识的经济功用,的确就是普遍所谓的「原初的过程。」

Let us not forget that for these terms – those that I have just put forward like those of the dyad, of the dyad from which we start, of the One and the Other; the One as I specifically articulated it the last time and that I am going, moreover, to take up again, the Other, in the use that I have always made of it – let us not forget, I am saying, that we have to start from their effect. Their effect has this derisory aspect that it lends itself to the crude metaphor that it is the child itself. The subjectification of sex gives birth to nothing, except misfortune.

让我们不要忘记,因为这些术语,我刚刚提出像二元对立那些术语,我们开始的术语,「一」及「大它者」的术语,上一次我明确表达作为这个「一」,而且我将再从事这个「大它者」,在我的使用,让我们不要忘记,我是说,我们必须从它们的影响开始。它们的影响具有嘲讽的一面,有助於小孩本身的概括比喻。性爱的主体化,一无所获,除了带来不幸。

But what it has already produced, what is given to us in a univocal fashion in psychoanalytic experience, is the waste product from which we start as a necessary supporting point to reconstruct the whole logic of this dyad.

但是它所已经产生的,在精神分析学的经验里,截然分明地给予我们的事这个废料的产品。我们藉以开始,作为一个支撑点,重新建立这个二元对立的逻辑。

This, in allowing (2) ourselves to be guided by what this object is the cause of – you know it, properly speaking – is the cause of, namely, the phantasy.

当我们容许自己被这个客体所引导,你们知道,适当地说,这就是幻见的原因。

Logic – if it is true that I can pose as its initial thesis, as I do, that there is no metalanguage – this is what logic means: that one can extract from language, specifically, the loci and the points where, as one might say, language speaks of itself. And this indeed is the way that it is expanding in our day. When I say “expanding in our day” it is because it is obvious. You have only to open a book of logic to see that it has no pretension to be any thing else – nothing ontic, in any case, scarcely ontological. On this point, all the same, betake yourself, since I am going to give you a two week break, to a reading of the Sophist – I mean Plato’s dialogue – to know the degree to which this formula is correct I am saying, as regards logic, and that its start does not date, therefore, from today or yesterday.

假如我能够提出逻辑它最初的命题是,没有形上语言存在,这就是逻辑的意思:明确地说,我们能够从语言抽取这些轨迹跟要点,在那里语言本身会说话,我不妨这样说。这确实就是我们的时代要扩充的内容。当我说「我们的时代要扩充」,那是显而易见的。你们必须打开一本逻辑的书,为了明白,它並没有伪装是别的东西,它根本跟本体论无关,无论如何,它几乎称不上是本体论。因为我将给你们两个星期的休假,在这一点,请你们专注地阅读「辩护士」,我是指柏拉图的「对话录」。你们就会知道,这个公式正确到什麽程度。我是说关於逻辑,因此,它不是起源於今天或昨天。

You will understand that it is, in fact, from this dialogue, the Sophist, that Martin starts – I mean, Martin Heidegger- in his restoration of the question of being. And, after all, it would be a no less salubrious discipline for you, to read, since my lack of information has meant that, having only recently received it through a press service, it is only today that I can advise you to read the Introduction to metaphysics, in the excellent translation that Gilbert Kahn has made of it. I say “excellent”, because in truth he did not try to do the impossible and, for all the words for which it is impossible to give an equivalent, except an equivocal one, he has calmly forged or reforged French words as he could, even if it entails a lexicon at the end to give us the exact German reference. But all of this is only a parenthesis.

你们将会了解到,事实上,马丁、海德格就是从这个「辩护士」的对话录开始,来恢复生命的实存问题。畢竟,对於你们,阅读它同样是有益心灵健康的训练,因为我的欠缺资讯意味着,最近我只是透过新闻报导才获知。所以只有在今天,我才能够劝告你们阅读「形上学导论」,吉伯特、康因有着优秀的翻译。我说「优秀」,因为事实上,他並没有企图做不可能的事。因为有些的字眼,我们不可能找到相等语,除了模棱两可的词语。他儘可能地平静地反复再三推敲法文,即使它最后已经找到一个词汇,确实表达德文的意思。但这只是题外话

This early read – which perhaps could be contested about Hiedegger’s other texts, but I assure you that this one is extraordinarily easy, and it even has a very clear cutting note of facility – it is impossible to render more transparent the way in which he intends that there should be re-posed at our historical turning point, the question of Being.

你们的预习或许还可以参照海德格的其它文本,但是我告诉你们,这一篇特别容易懂。虽然它的内容听起来简单,他的企图却是隐而不显。他企图将生命实存的问题,在我们历史的转捩点,从新再提出。

It is certainly not that I think that what is at stake here is anything other than an exercise in reading, and I have just said that it is very salubrious. It cleans up many things, but it nonetheless goes astray by giving the simple instruction of a return to Parmenides and Heraclitus -however brilliantly he situates them – at the level precisely of this meta-discourse that I am speaking about as immanent to language. It is not a metalanguage. The meta-discourse immanent to language that I call logic, is of course something that deserves to be refreshed at such a reading.

确实不是因为我认为,在此岌岌可危的,並不是阅读的练习,我刚刚说过,这是有益於心灵健康。它澄清许多事情,但是它仍然误导地回到巴门尼底斯及赫拉克利图斯,虽然这两位哲学家非常优秀,我现在所谈论的,确实就是在这个形上的真理论述层次,它是语言的内在性的这个误导。那不是一个形上语言。我所谓逻辑的语言,具有内在性的形上真理论述,当然是应该获得一再地更新阅读。

Certainly, I do not use – as you notice – in any way the etymological procedure, by which Heidegger makes admirably relive the formulae described as pre-Socratic. It is because, as a matter of fact, the direction that I intend to indicate differs, differs (3) from his, precisely in something which is irreversible, and which the Sophist indicates – it also is an extraordinarily easy read and which does not fail also to make its reference to Parmenides – precisely to mark how far and how alive it was against this defence that Parmenides expresses in these two verses:

的确,你们注意到,我並没有看出语源学的演变过程,海德格藉以更新在前苏格拉底的这些真理的公式。事实上,因为我打算指示的方向,跟这个大不相同。「辩护士」所指示的,确实是在不可倒转的部分。那一部分特别容易阅读,而且一定会提到巴门尼底斯。巴门尼底斯以这两句诗,深刻而生动表达驳斥这种辩护、

“No, you will never bend by force non-beings to being; From this path of research set aside your
thinking.”

「不,你们将永远不会将不存在,强制於存在;
否则,你们思想将偏离这条探索的途径。」

It is precisely the route opened, opened by the Sophist that is imposed on us, properly speaking, on us analysts, in order for us simply to know what we are dealing with.

确实就是这条展开的途径,由辩护士所展开,展现在我们面前,恰当地说,展开在我们精神分析师面前,仅仅为了让我们知道,我们正在处理什麽。

If I had succeeded in making a psychoanalyst literate, I would have won the game. Namely, that from then on, the person who is not a psychoanalyst would become, by that very fact, an illiterate. Let the numerous literati who people this room reassure themselves, they still have their little remainder!

假如我当时成功地使精神分析师知晓真相,我本来会赢得名声。换句话说,从那时开始,由于那个事实,精神分析学的专业真理,只有精神分析师知晓,其它的人形同精神分析学文盲。假如出席这个演讲厅的无数精神分析师精英,如此洋洋自得,他们将会是多麽的疏漏!

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

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 )

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: