Encore

Encore
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
論歡爽

It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part – after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of “I don’t want to know anything about it.”

因為偶然因緣,我並沒有出版「精神分析倫理學」。在當時,在我這邊是出於禮貌—你們先請,請你們不用客氣,替我當先鋒。隨著時間過去,我學習到關於它,我能夠說更多的話。 然後我體會到,組成我的論述的內容,是一種「我不想要知道關於它。」

That is no doubt why, with the passage of time, I am still (encore) here, and you are too. I never cease to be amazed by it. . . ?

無可置疑地,隨著時間過去,為什麼我依舊還在這裡(繼續再來),你們也是。對於它,我永遠不會停止感到驚奇…?

What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an “I don’t want to know anything about it.” But – the all important question – is it the same one?

有一陣子,對於我運作有利的東西,在你們那邊也會運作有利。你們在此地大多數人, 這一句「對於它,我不想要知道什麼。」但是,這個非常重要的問題是: 這是相同的問題嗎?

Is your “I don’t want to know anything about it” regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don’t think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this “I don’t want to know anything about it” that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my “I don’t want to know anything about it,” it’ll be quite some time before you reach the same point.

在你們的「對於它,我不想要知道什麼」,關於某種的知識。這個知識一點一滴地傳遞給予你們,在我身上運作的是什麼? 我不這樣認為。 確實是因為你們認為,我從跟你們不同的地方開始,在這個「對於它,我不想要知道什麼。」你們發現你們自己跟我連繫在一塊。 由於那樣,雖然關於你們,我確實僅是能夠在這裡,處於一位分析者的立場,由於我的「關於它,我不想要知道任何事情。」要過一段相當長的時間後,你們才會到達這個相同點。

That is why it is only when yours seems adequate to you that you can, if you are one of my analysands, normally detach yourself from your analysis.

那就是為什麼,當你們的立場對於而言,似乎是勝任,你們才會正常地將你們自己,跟你們的精神分析區隔開了,假如你們是我的分析者的話。

The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.

我從這裡獲得的結論是: 跟人們一直在說的相反, 在我作為分析師的立場,跟我在此地的作為之間,並沒有矛盾。

1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s’oupire.4 That has nothing to do with “I” or “y°u ” ~ je ne t’oupire pas, ni tu ne m’oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s’oupirer).

去年,我將我認為要跟你演說的標題是「每況愈下」,然後是「令自己歎息」。那跟這個「我」或「你」絲毫沒有關係。我們的途徑,精神分析論述的途徑,僅是順著這個狹窄的限制前進,這把刀子的鋒利邊緣前進。情況是如此,以致於在別的地方,它僅會每況愈下。

That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.

那就是這個論述作為我的研究的基礎。然後,今年重新開始它。我首先將要認為你們躺在床上, 一種被善為利用的床。你們兩個人躺在床上。

To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond – in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being – that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.

對於某個人, 一位陪審員,他曾經好心地詢問到我的論述。我感覺我能夠回應,為了給他感覺到我的論述的基礎。 換句話說, 語言並不是這個言說的主體。 我並不覺得我有什麼不合適,必須要在法律的學校演說。 因為在這所學校,法規的存在表達很清楚: 語言存在於那裡, 而且分開,因為語言是經歷好幾百年累積形成。而言說的主體,眾所周知就是人, 卻是完全不同的另一回事。因此,我開始就假定你們躺在床上,禮貌要求,我應該跟他道歉。

I won’t leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about – jouissance.

今天我將不會離開這個床,我將會提醒這個陪審員,法律基本上是談論到我正要跟你們談論的東西—歡爽。

Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed – squeeze each other tight (s’étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.

法律並沒於忽略這個床。 例如,根據明細的普通法,同居關係,意思是以共同居住為基礎。我現在將要做的,是從被法律遮蔽的剩餘的部分開始。 換句話說, 我們在那個床上所做的—互相緊抱在一塊。我從這個限制開始。假如我們想要認真談論,我們確實必須從那個限制開始。換句話說,為了建立這個系列,對於接近這個限制的方法。

A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. “Usufruct” – that’s a legal notion, isn’t it? – brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?

在此有一個字,讓法律與歡爽之間的關係,清楚顯現。 那是一個法律的觀念,不是嗎? 它以一個字,將我在討論倫理學的研討班所提到的內容貫穿起來。換句話說,在實用性與歡爽之間的差異。 實用性充當什麼目的?

That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. “Usufruct” means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don’t use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.

實用性從來沒有清楚地被定義,由於言說的主體擁有這個巨大的尊敬,對於語言。 因為就工具而言,「共有權」意味著,你能夠享受你的工具,但是一定不要浪費它們。當你享有某個遺產的共有權,你能享受這個遺產,只要你不要過分消耗它。 那很清楚地就是法律的本質—區分,分配,或是重新再分配每一樣被認為是「歡爽」的東西。

What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).

歡爽是什麼? 在此,它等於就僅僅是一個負面的例子。歡爽就是充當沒有任何目的之用。

I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance – Enjoy!

我正在此指向由這個歡爽的權利的領域暗示的保留。權利並不是義務。沒有一樣東西會強迫任何人享受,除了超我。 超我是歡爽的命令—享受吧!

Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the “after you” period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course – namely, Aristotle’s ethics.

在此我們看到由精神分析論述研究的這個轉捩點。沿著這條途徑,在我讓它過去的這個「你們先行」的這段時期後,我嘗試顯示: 精神分析並不容許我們保持在我開始的那個層次,當然表示尊敬地說—也就是說,亞力斯多德的倫理學。

A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle’s view of being to Bentham’s utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value – that is, the instrumental status – of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.

隨著時間過去,有某種的漏失發生。時間的過去並沒有形成進步,反而是問題的逃避,避開從亞力斯多德的生命實存的觀點,到邊沁的功利主義。 換句話說,到證明語言的使用價值,也就是工具性的地位的幻想的理論。就是從那個觀點,我回到生命實存的地位的問題,從統治的善,作為沉思的客體,根據這個基礎, 人們以前相信,他們能夠建立倫理學的華夏。

Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: “Jouissance of the Other,” of the Other with a capital O, “of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love.”12

因此,我將你們留置在你們在這個床上的設計。我將出去,然後再一次地,我將在門上書寫以下的句子:「大彼者的歡爽」。這個大彼者有一個大寫字母O,「象徵大彼者的大彼者的身體,並不是愛的訊息。」

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

2 Responses to “Encore”

  1. 路人周 Says:

    That is why it is only when yours seems adequate to you that you can, if you are one of my analysands, normally detach yourself from your analysis.

    那就是為什麼,當你們的立場對於而言,似乎是勝任,你們才會正常地將你們自己,跟你們的精神分析區隔開了,假如你們是我的分析者的話

    小修正:那就是為什麼,只有當你們的立場相符於你們之時,你們才能,如果你們是我的被分析者之一的話,以常規的方式將自身脫離出你們的分析。(譯按:分析終結之時,在於病人滿足於,或不再想知道為什麼了。)

    路人。

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: