Archive for November, 2012

Ethic 228

November 6, 2012

Ethic 228

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVII 第17章

The function of the good
善的功用

UT I L I T Y AND JOUISSANCE
实用与欢爽

We have now reached the crossroads of utilitarianism.

我们现在已经到达功利主义的十字路口。

Jeremy Bentham’s thought is not the simple continuation of that gnoseology
to which a whole tradition tirelessly devoted itself in order to reduce the
transcendental or supernatural dimension of the progress of knowledge that
supposedly needed elucidating. Bentham, as that work of his which has recently
drawn some attention, The Theory of Fictions, shows, is the man who approaches
the question at the level of the signifier.

杰瑞米、边沁的思想并不是那种知识论哲学的单纯的延续,整个的传统孜孜不倦地致力于在知识论哲学,为了简化知识进步的超验与超自然的维度,因为它们被认为是需要诠释。边沁最近引人注意到他的那本著作「幻想的理论」显示,他从这个能指的层层探究这个问题。

With relation to institutions in their fictive or, in other words, fundamentally
verbal dimension, his search has involved not attempting to reduce to
nothing all the multiple, incoherent, contradictory rights of which English
jurisprudence furnishes an example, but, on the contrary, observing on the
basis of the symbolic artifice of these terms, which are themselves also creators
of texts, what there is there that may be used to some purpose, that is to
say, become, in effect, the object of a division. The long historical development
of the problem of the good is in the end centered on the notion of how
goods are created, insofar as they are organized not on the basis of so-called
natural and predetermined needs, but insofar as they furnish the material of
a distribution; and it is in relation to this that the dialectic of the good is
articulated to the degree that it takes on effective meaning for man.

相关于这些机构,在它们幻想,也就是说,基本上是文辞的维度,边沁的研究已经牵涉到,并没有要将所有的多重性,不一贯的互相牴触的权利,简化成为空无。英国司法供应一个权利互相牴触的例子,而是相反地,他根据这些术语的象征巧匠观察,这些术语本身也是文本的创造者。他观察有什么东西可被用来充当某种目的。换句话说,它们实际上成为某种分裂的目标。善的问题漫长的历史的发展,最后集中在这个观念:善如何被创造,因为它们被组织,并不是根据所谓的自然与预先注定的需要。而是它们供应分配的材料。相关于这个,善的辩证法被表达,甚至它对于人形成有效用的意义。

Man’s needs find their home on the level of utility, which involves that
portion of the symbolic text that may be of some use. At this stage there is
no problem; the greatest utility for the greatest number – such indeed is the
law in the light of which the problem of the function of goods is organized.
At this level we find ourselves, in effect, prior to the moment when the subject
puts his head through the holes in the cloth. The cloth is so made that
the greatest number of subjects possible may put their heads and their limbs
through it.

人的需求在功利的层次找到他们的家园。这牵涉到可能会有点用途的象征文本的部分。在那个阶段,并没有问题:对于最大多数的最大利益就是善。从法则的观点,确实是这样,善的功用的问题被组织。在这个层次,我们发现我们自己,实际上,先前于这个时刻,当主体将他的头穿过布的这些洞。这块布被形成:尽可能的最大多数的主体,可能将他们的头与他们的四肢穿过它。

Yet all this talk wouldn’t mean anything if things didn’t start functioning
differently. Now in this thing, whether it be rare or not, but in any case a
made thing, in all this wealth finally – whatever its correlative in poverty –
there is from the beginning something other than use value. There is its
jouissance use.

可是,所以这些谈论将没有丝毫意义,假如事情并没有开始以不同方式发挥功用。现在,在这件事情,无论它罕见与否,但是无论如何,有一件被形成的东西,最后在所有这个财富当中—无论它会牵涉到贫穷方面的什么—从一开始,就有某件东西,不同于实用价值。那就是「欢爽用途」的价值。

As a result, the good is articulated in a wholly different way. The good is
not at the level of the use of the cloth. The good is at the level where a subject
may have it at his disposal.

结果,善被表达,用完全不同的方式。善并不是处于布的用途的层次。善处于这个层次,主体可能拥有它可支配的层次。

The domain of the good is the birth of power. The notion of control of the
good is essential, and if one foregrounds this, everything is revealed concerning
the meaning of the claim made by man, at a certain point in his history,
once he has managed to achieve control of himself.

善的领域就是权力的诞生。善的控制的观念是基本的,假如我们以这个作为前景,每样东西会被显露出来,关于人从事这个宣称的意义。在历史的某个时刻,一旦他成功与完成对他自己的控制。

It was Freud, not me, who took upon himself the task of unmasking what
this has effectively meant historically. To exercise control over one’s goods,
as everyone knows, entails a certain disorder, that reveals its true nature,
i.e., to exercise control over one’s goods is to have the right to deprive others
of them.

是弗洛依德,不是我。弗洛依德替他自己承担起这个工作:揭露这种善在历史上的实际意义。众所周知,为了对自己的善从事控制,会涵盖某种的混乱,这种混乱会显露善的真实特性,也就是说,对自己的善从事控制,就是拥有权利剥夺掉别人的这种权利。

There is, I think, no point in making you sense the fact that historical
destiny is played out around such a situation. The whole question concerns
the moment when one can consider that this process has come to an end. For
this function of the good engenders, of course, a dialectic. I mean that the
power to deprive others is a very solid link from which will emerge the other
as such.

我认为,让你们理解这个事实,并没有多大意义:历史的命运就是环绕这一种情况在扮演。整个的问题都关系到这个时刻,当我们能够认为,这个过程已经结束。因为,这个善的功用当然会产生一种辩证法。我的意思是,剥夺别人的权力,就是一个很牢固的关联,他者的本身会从那个关联里出现。

Remember what I once told you concerning privation, which has subsequently
caused a problem for some of you. You will see clearly in this connection
that I don’t say anything by chance.

请你们记住,我曾经告诉过你们的东西,关于被剥夺。对于你们一些人,这种被剥夺随后会引起问题。你们将会清楚地看出,关于这点,我保持沉默,并非是偶然的。

Opposing privation to frustration and castration, I said that it was a function
instituted as such in the symbolic order, to the extent that nothing is
deprived of nothing – which doesn’t prevent the good one is deprived of from
being wholly real. The important thing is to recognize that the depriving
agent is an imaginary function. It is the little other, one’s fellow man, he who
is given in the relationship that is half rooted in naturalness of the mirror
stage, but such as he appears to us there where things are articulated at the
level of the symbolic.

当我将被剥夺跟挫折与阉割相提并论时,我说,它的本身被安置于符号象征秩序的功用,甚至空无被剥夺空无。这并没有阻止我们被剥夺的善的功用,不能成为完整地真实。重要的事情是要体认出,剥夺的这个代理者是一个想象的功用。他被给予这个小他者,我们的同胞,因为这个关系一半根源于镜子阶段的自然性,但是我们觉得,他以镜子阶段的自然性,在符号象征的层次,事情被表达。

There is a fact observed in experience that one always
has to remember in analysis, namely, what is meant by defending one’s goods
is one and the same thing as forbidding3 oneself from enjoying them.
The sphere of the good erects a strong wall across the path of our desire.
It is, in fact, at every moment and always, the first barrier that we have to
deal with.

在精神分析经验,我们观察到一个事实: 在精神分析,我们总是必须记得,换句话说,替自己的善辩护的意义,同时也是禁止自己去享受那些善。善的领域竖立起一道坚固的墙壁,跨越我们欲望的途径。事实上,就在每个时刻,这总是我们必须要处理的第一道障碍。

陈春雄译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Ethic 224

November 6, 2012

Ethic 224

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVII 第17章

The function of the good
善的功用

THE SUBJECT, ELISION OF A SIGNIFIER
主体,能指的省略

THE TEXTILE FAB L E
织物的寓言

UT I L I T Y AND JOUISSANCE
实用与欢爽
3
The question of the good is situated athwart the pleasure principle and the
reality principle. There’s no possibility that from such a point of view we can
escape conflict, given that we have regularly shifted the center.

善的问题被定位于超越快乐原则与现实原则。我们不可能从这样一个观点,逃避冲突,假如考虑到我们曾经规律地转换这个中心。

It is impossible at this point not to bear witness to the following fact, one
that is too little articulated in the Freudian conception itself, namely, that
reality is not the simple dialectical correlative of the pleasure principle. Or
more exactly, that reality isn’t just there so that we bump our heads up against
the false paths along which the functioning of the pleasure principle leads us.
In truth, we make reality out of pleasure.

在此时,我们不可能没有见证到底下这个事实:在弗洛依德的观念本身,这个事实罕见被表达。换句话说,现实界跟快乐原则,并不是简单的辩证的相关。或更贴切地说,现实界并不仅仅在那儿,这样我们跟这些虚假的途径跌跌撞撞。沿着这些途径,快乐的功用引导我们。事实上,我们用快乐形成现实界。

This is an essential notion. It is wholly summed up in the notion of praxis
in the two senses that that word has acquired historically. On the one hand,
in the domain of ethics, it concerns action, insofar as action has not just an
έργον as its goal, but is also inscribed in an ενέργεια; on the other hand, it
has to do with making, with the production ex nihilo I spoke to you about
last time. It is no accident if these two meanings are subsumed under the
same term.

这是一个基本的观念。在实践的观念,这完全地被总结。它具有那个字词在历史上具有的这两种意义:一方面,在伦理学的领域,它跟行动息息相关,因为行动并不仅拥有一个目的「έργον」,作为它的目标,而且它也被铭记在过程「ενέργεια」。换句话说,它跟形成有关系,跟我上次跟你们谈到的「从空无中创造ex nihilo」的产生有关系。假日这两个意义被视为是相同术语的次标题,这并不意外。

We must see right away how crude it is to accept the idea that, in the
ethical order itself, everything can be reduced to social constraint, as is so
often the case in the theoretical writings of certain analysts – as if the fashion
in which that constraint develops doesn’t in itself raise a question for people
who live within the realms of our experience. In the name of what is social
constraint exercised? Of a collective tendency? Why in all this time hasn’t
such social constraint managed to focus on the most appropriate paths to the
satisfaction of individuals’ desires? Do I need to say anymore to an audience
of analysts to make clear the distance that exists between the organization of
desires and the organization of needs?

我们立刻看出,接受这个观念是多么不合宜。在伦理的秩序本身,每样东西会被化减为社会的约束,如同在某个精神分析的理论的著作,经常发生的情况。好像那个社会约束发展的方式,本身并没有引起这个问题,对于生活于我们精神分析经验的领域的那些人。以社会的约束被运用的名义?或是以集体的倾向的名义?为什么在所有这段时间,如此的社会的约束,没有成功地专注于这些最合适的途径,来抵达个人欲望的满足?对于精神分析家的听众,我还需要再多说,以澄清这个距离,存在于欲望的组织与需要的组织之间的距离?

But who knows? Perhaps I need to insist after all.

但是有谁知道?或许,我毕竟需要去坚持。

Perhaps I would get a stronger reaction from an audience of school boys.
They at least would realize right away that the order imposed in their school
is not designed to enable them to jerk off under the best possible conditions.
I nevertheless assume that the eyes of an analyst are made to interpret that
which runs through a certain dream world, which we call, significantly enough,
Utopia. Take Fourier, for example, since reading him is by the way such fun.
The farcical effect his work generates is instructive. He shows how distant
what is called social progress is from whatever is done in the expectation, not
so much of opening up the flood gates, as of merely thinking through a given
collective order in terms of the satisfaction of desires. For the moment we
just want to know if we can see a little more clearly here than others.

或许,我从学生的听众获得的反应会更加强烈。他们至少会立刻体会到,被赋加在他们的学校的这个秩序,并不是被设计来让他们能够从尽可能的情况跳脱出来。可是我认为,精神分析家的眼睛被培养,是要来解释在某个梦的世界的流通的东西。用充分的意义的方式,我们称这个梦的世界为乌托邦。以安那其主义傅利业Fourier为例,因为阅读他的著作,不期而遇是如此有趣的东西。他的著作产生的闹剧的效果,是如此具有启发性。他显示,所谓的社会的进展,距离这个期望所被做的事情,是多么的遥远。与其说是展开洪水的闸门,不如说是仅是凭借某个特定的集体的秩序来思考,用欲望满足的术语。目前,我们仅是想要知道,我们是否能够比起别人,更加清楚地看出。

We are not the first to have gone along this road. As for myself, there is
among those assembled here an audience of Marxists, and I assume that those
who are part of it can recall the intimate, profound relationship, a relationship
woven into the lines of the text, between what I am proposing here and
Marx’s fundamental discussions concerning the relations between man and
the object of his production. To hurry things along, that brings us back to that point at which I left you in a digression of my lecture before last, namely, with Saint Martin cutting in two with his sword the large piece of cloth in which he was enveloped for his journey to Cavalla.

我们并不是首批沿着这条途径前进的人。至于我自己,在聚集的听众里,有一些是马克思主义者。我认为,有部分的那些马克思主义者会回想到那个亲密,深刻的关系,被编织进入文本的字里行间的关系,处于我在此正在建议的东西,及马克思的基本的讨论,关于人与他自己产生的客体的关系。假如我们匆促前进,那会带领我们回到那个点,我在上上次的演讲的离题发挥,留你们在那里的那个点。换句话是,圣马丁用他的剑,将这块大的布切成两半,当他旅行到卡瓦拉时,他包裹在他身上的那块布。

Let’s take up the point as it stands, at the level of different goods, and let’s
ask ourselves the question of what that piece of cloth is.

让我们探究那个点,依照它原有的样子,处于不同的善的层次。让我们询问我们自己这个问题:那块布的代价是什么。

Given that with it one can make a piece of clothing, the piece of cloth has
a use value with which others before me have been concerned. You would be
wrong to think that the relation of man to the object of his production at its
fundamental level has been completely elucidated – even by Marx, who took
things very far in this respect.

假如考虑到,它能够形成一件衣服,这块布就具有实用价值,在我面前,还有些人曾经关心这个使用价值。你们将是错误,假如你们认为,人跟他的产生的客体的关系,处于它的基本的层次,曾经完整地被诠释—甚至由马克思来诠释。在这方面,他将事情分析颇为透彻。

I am not going to offer here a critique of economic structures. Something
very interesting did happen to me, however, one of those things I enjoy because
their meaning is to be found at a level that is within our grasp but that is
always more or less mystifying. It seems that in my last seminar I am supposed
to have made an allusion to a given chapter of the latest book of Sartre,
to his Critique of Dialectical Reason. I like the idea, since I am about to refer
to it; the only problem is that the point in question has to do with thirty
pages that I read for the first time last Sunday.

我并没有要在此提供对于经济结构的批判。我确实遭遇到某件非常有趣的事情。可是,其中有件事,我颇喜欢,因为它们的意义能够被找到,在我们理解的范围之内,但是那总是相当神秘。似乎在我上次的研讨班,我被认为曾经提到萨特的最近一本书的某个特定章节,提到他的「辩证理性的批判」。我喜欢这个观念,因为我即将提到它,唯一的问题是,受到质疑的这个点,跟我在上个星期日第一次阅读的三十页有关。

I don’t know what to say about the work as a whole because I have only
read these thirty pages, but I must say that they are pretty good. They concern
precisely the original relations of man to the object of his needs. It seems
to me that it is in this particular register that Sartre intends to take things to
their final term, and if that is his purpose, if he does manage to be exhaustive,
the work will certainly prove useful.

我并不知道应该如何整体地谈论这本书,因为我仅曾经阅读这三十页。但是我必须说,它们非常精彩。它们确实关心到人与他的需求的客体的原先的关系。我觉得,就在这个特别的铭记,萨特打算将事情分析到它们最后的术语。假如那就是他的目的,假如他确实成功地穷尽一切,这本著作将确实证明是有用途的。

This fundamental relationship is defined starting from the notion of scarcity
as that which founds man’s condition, as that which makes him man in
his relation to his needs. For a body of thought that aims for total dialectical
transparency, such a final term is certainly rather obscure, whereas we have
managed to introduce into this cloth, whether rare or not, a little breath of
air which sets it floating and enables us to describe it in less opaque terms.
Psychoanalysts have given themselves plenty of room in the effort to see
what this cloth symbolizes; they tell us what it both shows and hides, that
the symbolism of clothes is a valid symbolism, without our knowing whether
at any given moment what is being done with this cloth-phallus concerns
disclosure or concealment.

这个基本的关系被定义,从馈乏的这个观念开始。作为人的情况的基础,作为人与他的需求的关系形成的东西。一个思想的体系目标是要整体的辩证透明度,这样一个最后的术语,确实是相当模糊的。虽然我们曾经成功地介绍进入这块布,无论是罕见与否,稍微风吹一下,就会让这块布飘动起来,并且让我们能够描述它,用比较不晦涩的术语。精神分析家曾经给予他们自己宽裕的空间,当他们努力要看出,这块布象征什么。他们告诉我们,这块布显示与隐藏的。衣服的象征主义是有一个有效的象征主义,我们并不知道是否在任何特定的时刻,对于这块布充当阳具象征所正在处理的东西,它关系到泄漏与隐藏。

The profound bivalence of the whole of analytical theory on the subject of the symbolism of clothes enables us to evaluate the impasse reached with the notion of the symbol as handled up till now in psychoanalysis. If you are able to find the large volume of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis that was produced for Jones’s fiftieth birthday, you will see an article by Flugel on the symbolism of clothes in which you will find the same impasses I pointed to, in the last issue of our journal, in Jones’s own articulation of symbolism, but in an even more striking and almost caricatural form.

对于衣服的象征主义的主题,整体的精神分析理论的深刻的双重价值,让我们能够评估这个僵局,随着迄今,在精神分析所处理的东西,象征的观念所到达的僵局。假如你们能够找到那一大册的「国际精神分析杂志」,它们在琼斯的五十岁生日被出版,你们将会看到一篇文章,弗鲁杰探讨衣服的象征主义。在文章里,你们将会找到我指出的相同的僵局,在我们杂志的上期,在琼斯对于象征主义的表达。但是用的形式更加生动,几乎是嘲讽。

In any case, all the absurd things that have been said about symbolism do
nevertheless lead us somewhere. There is something hidden there, and it is
always, we are told, that damned phallus. We are brought back to something
that one might have expected would have been thought of right off, that is to
say, to the relationship of the cloth to the missing hair – but it’s not missing
everywhere on our body. At this point we do find a psychoanalytic writer
who tells us that all the cloth we are concerned with is nothing more than the
extrapolation or development of woman’s fleece, the famous fleece that hides
the fact that she doesn’t have what it takes. These apparent revelations of the
unconscious always have their comic side. But it’s not completely screwy; I
even think that it’s a nice little fable.

无论如何,关于象征主义曾经被说过的所有的荒谬事情,确实仍然引导我们到某个地方。有某件东西被隐藏在那里。我们被告诉,那总是该死的阳具。我们被带回某件东西,我们本来会怀疑到,从一开始就本来会被想到的东西。换句话说,这块布跟这个失落的发毛的关系—但是它并没有在我们身体的每个地方失落。在这个时刻,我们确实发现一位精神分析作家,他告诉我们,我们所关心的所有这块布,仅仅就是女人的毛发的发展的推论,这个著名的毛发隐藏这个事实:她并没有拥有它所具有的。无意识的这个明显的启示,总是拥有它们的滑稽的一面。但是它并没有完全不正当。我甚至认为,那是一个很好的小寓言。

Perhaps it might even contain an element of phenomenology relative to the
function of nudity. Is nudity purely and simply a natural phenomenon? The
whole of psychoanalytic thought is designed to prove it isn’t. The thing that
is particularly exalting about it and significant in its own right is that there is
a beyond of nudity that nudity hides. But we don’t need to engage in phenomenology;
I prefer fables.

或许,它甚至可能包括跟裸体的功用相关的现象学的一个因素。裸体纯粹是自然的现象吗?整个的精神分析思想被设计来证明,它并不是纯粹是自然的现象。关于它,特别令人赞赏,及它具有属于它自己的重要性,是有一个裸体隐藏的赤裸的超越物。但是我们并不需要从事现象学。我宁可用寓言。

The fable on this occasion concerns Adam and Eve, with the proviso that
the dimension of the signifier also be present, the signifier as introduced by
the father in the benevolent directions he gives: “Adam, you must give names
to everything around you.” Here is Adam, then, and here is the famous hair
of an Eve that we hope is worthy of the beauty that this first gesture evokes.

在这个场合,这个寓言跟亚当与夏娃有关,带着这个但书,能指维度也应该被呈现,由父亲介绍的这个能指,在他给予的仁慈的方向:「亚当,你必须给予名字给你四周的一切东西。」在此,因此是亚当,在此是夏娃的著名的毛发,我们希望夏娃值得这个最初的姿态召唤的美丽。

Adam pulls out one of her hairs. Everything I am trying to show you here
turns on a hair, a frog’s hair.2 Adam pulls out a hair from the woman who is
given to him as his wife, who has been expected for the whole of eternity,
and the next day she comes back with a mink coat over her shoulders.

亚当拔出她的一根毛发。我在此显示给予你们的一切都转向一根毛发,青蛙的毛发。亚当从被给予他当妻子的女人,拔出一根毛发。第二天,她回来,肩膀上披着一件貂皮大衣。

Therein lies the power of the nature of cloth. It’s not because man has less
hair than other animals that we have to check out everything that down the
ages will burst forth from his industry. If we are to believe the linguists, the
problem of different goods is raised within a structure. At the beginning
everything is structured as a signifier, even if only a chain of hairs is involved.

布的特质的力量就在那里。这并不是因为人比起其他动物,具有较少的毛发,我们才必须检查几世纪来因为人的勤奋产生的一切。假如我们想要相信语言学家,不同善的问题从结构被提出。在开始,每一样都是作为是一个能指的结构,即使仅是毛发的锁链被牵涉到。

Textile is first of all a text. There is cloth, and – let me invoke the driest
of minds, Marx, for example – it is impossible to posit as primary some
producers’ cooperative or other, unless, of course, one wants to make a psychological
fable. In the beginning there is the producer’s inventiveness, namely, the fact that man – and why he alone? – begins to weave something, something that isn’t in the form of a covering or cocoon for his own body, but something that as cloth is going to take off on its own in the world, is going to move around. Why? Because this cloth has time value.

织料首先就是文本。有布存在—让我召唤最具嘲讽的心灵,譬如,马克思—这是不可能的,要提出一些生产者的合作,作为基础。当然,除非是我们想要创作一个心理学的寓言。在开始,存在着生产者的创意,换句话说,人开始编织某件东西,为什么仅是人开始?某件东西并不是为了他自己的身体的覆盖或蚕茧,而是某件像是布的东西,将要独立地在世界起飞,将有到处移动。为什么?因为这块布拥有时间的价值。

That’s what distinguishes it from any form of natural production. One can
come close to it in the creations of the animal world, but it is originated only
when it is fabricated, when it is open to the world, to age and to newness; it
is use value, time value; it is a reservoir of needs; it is there whether one
needs it or not; and it is around this cloth that a whole dialectic of rivalry and
of sharing is organized, wherein needs will be constituted.

那就是区别它跟任何形态的自然产物的东西。我们能够靠近它,以动物世界的创造物,但是仅有当它被编制,当它开放给世界,岁月,新颖时,它才算是被开始。它具有实用价值,时间价值,它是各种需求的的储藏室,无论我们是否有人需要它,它都在那里。就是环绕这块布,敌意与分享的整个辩证法被组织,需求在里面被构成。

In order to grasp this, simply set in the distance in opposition to this function,
the word of the Messiah according to the Gospel when he shows men
what happens to those who trust in the Father’s Providence: “They weave
not neither do they spin; they offer men an imitation of the robe of the lilies
and the plumage of birds.” This is a stupefying abolition of the text by the
word. As I pointed out last time, the chief characteristic of this world is that
one has to uproot it from its text if one is to have faith in it.

为了理解这点,请你们从这个功用相反的方向的远处,开始救世主的这个道。依照福音书,当他跟人们显示,那些相信天父的眷顾的人,会有怎样的奇迹:「他们既不编织,也不纺织。他们提供人们,用百合花与鸟的羽毛,模仿当衣袍」。这是文本被真理之道令人叹为观止的废除。如同我上次指出,这个世界的主要特色是,我们必须将它从它的文本连根拔起,假如我们对它有信仰。

But the history of humanity takes place in the text and it is in the text that we have the cloth. Saint Martin’s gesture means in the beginning that man as such, man with
his rights, begins to be individualized as soon as one begins to make holes in
this cloth through which his head and his arms can emerge, through which,
in effect, he begins to organize himself as clothed, that is to say, as having
needs that have been satisfied. What can there be behind this? What in spite
of that can he continue to desire? – I say “in spite of that” because from that
moment on we know less and less about it.

但是人类的历史发生在这个文本。在这个文本,我们拥有这块布。圣马丁的姿态在开始就意味着:人的本身,拥有自己权利的人,开始被个体化,当他一开始在布上穿洞。通过这块布,他的头跟手臂能够伸出来。通过这块布,实际上,他开始组织他自己,作为穿上衣服。换句话说,作为拥有曾经被满足的需要。在这个背后存在着什么?尽管那个,他能够继续欲望什么?我说「尽管那个」,因为从那个时刻开始,关于它,我们知道越来越少。

We have now reached the crossroads of utilitarianism.

我们现在已经到达功利主义的十字路口。

Ethic 222

November 3, 2012

Ethic 222

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVII 第17章

The function of the good
善的功用

MEMORY, FACILITATION, RITE
记忆,促进引导,仪式

THE SUBJECT, ELISION OF A SIGNIFIER
主体,能指的省略

THE TEXTILE FAB L E
织物的寓言

UT I L I T Y AND JOUISSANCE
实用与欢爽

2
Let me just draw your attention to the fact that the conception of the pleasure
principle is inseparable from the reality principle, that it is in a dialectical
relationship with it. But one has to begin, and I would simply like to begin
by pointing out what Freud articulates exactly.

让我仅提醒你们注意这个事实:快乐原则这个观念,跟现实原则是无法分离的,快乐原则跟现实原则处于辩证法的关系。但是我们必须开始,我仅是想要开始指出,弗洛依的确实表达的东西。

Notice how the pleasure principle is articulated from the Entwurf, where
we began this year, right up to the end in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. The
end illuminates the beginning, and one can already see in the Entwurf the
nerve center to which I want to draw your attention for a moment.

请注意,快乐原则如何从这个「构图」被表达,在那里,我们今年开始,直到「超越快乐原则」的结束。这个结束启示这个开始,在「构图」,我们已经能够看到这个神经中枢,我想要暂时提醒你们注意一下。

Apparently there is no doubt that the pleasure principle organizes the final
reactions for the human psyche, there is no doubt that pleasure is articulated
in relation to the presupposition of a satisfaction, and it is driven by a lack in
the order of need that the subject becomes caught up in its toils, until a
perception occurs that is identical to that which first gave satisfaction. The
crudest of references to the reality principle indicates that one finds satisfaction
along paths that have already procured it. But look a little closer: is that
all Freud has to say? Certainly not. The originality of the Entwurf resides in
the notion of facilitations that control the distribution of libidinal investments
in such a way that a certain level beyond which the degree of excitation is
unbearable for the subject is never exceeded.

显而易见地,快乐原则组织人类心灵的最后反动,这是无可置疑的。快乐被表达,相关于预先假设满足。在需求的秩序,快乐受到欠缺的驱使,主体套陷于需求的劳苦工作,直到一种感觉产生,认同于给予它满足的东西。跟现实原则的初始相关,指示著,我们找到满足,沿着已经获得快乐的途径。但是,请更加仔观察:那就是弗洛依德所说的吗?当然不是。这个「势导易化」的原创性在于「连锁性」的观念。这个「势导易化」控制力比多的投注的分配,以这样一种方式,以致于某种的层次从来没有被超越过,尽管对于主体而言,刺激的程度超越它时,会让人无法忍受。

The introduction of the function of facilitations opens on to a theme that
will become increasingly important as Freud’s thought develops, in light of
the fact that Freud’s thought is his experience.

「势导易化」的功用的介绍开展一个主题。随着弗洛依的思想的发展,这个主题将会越来越重要,由于这个事实:弗洛依德的思想就是他的精神分析经验。

I have been criticized for having said that, from the point of view of ethics,
our experience derives its exemplary value from the fact that it doesn’t recognize
the dimension of habit, in terms of which human behavior has customarily
been assumed to be a process of improvement, of training. In this
connection, the notion of facilitation has been used against me. I reject this
opposition.

我曾经受到批评,因为我曾经说过,从伦理学的观点,我们精神分析经验获得它的典范价值,根据这个事实:它并没有体认出习惯的这个维度。用习惯这个术语,人类的行为制式地被认为是改进,训练的过程。关于这点,势导易化的观念被使用来反对我。

The recourse to facilitation in Freud has nothing at all to do with
the function of habit as it is defined when one thinks of a learning process.
With Freud, it is not a question of creative imprinting but of the pleasure
engendered by the functioning of the facilitations. Now the core of the pleasure
principle is situated at the level of subjectivity. Facilitation is not a
mechanical effect; it is invoked as the pleasure of a facility, and it will be
taken up again as the pleasure of a repetition or, more precisely, as repetition
compulsion. The core of Freudian thought as it is deployed by us as analysts,
whether we attend this seminar or not, is that the function of memory,
remembering, is at the very least a rival of the satisfactions it is charged with
effecting- It has its own dimension whose reach goes beyond that of a satisfying
finality. The tyranny of memory is that which is elaborated in what we
call structure.

诉诸于弗洛依德的势导易化,跟习惯的功用并没有丝毫关系。因为这并不是创造性印记的问题,而是由势导易化的功用产生的快乐的问题,现在,快乐原则的核心被定位在主体性的层次。势导易化并不是一个机械式的效应,它被唤起,作为方便性的快乐,它将会再次被从事,作为是重复的快乐,是更贴切地说,作为重复的冲撞力。弗洛依德思想的核心,依照我们作为精神分析家所运用的,无论我们出席这个研讨班与否,那就是,记忆或回忆的功用,至少是这个满足的敌人,因为它负担著要造成结果。它拥有它自己的维度,这个维度的到达,超越一个令人满足的最终性的维度。记忆的暴虐是我们所谓的结构里所被建构的东西。

Such is the originality, the breakthrough, one cannot avoid emphasizing,
if one wants to see clearly what is new in the conception of human behavior
introduced by Freudian thought and experience. No doubt if someone wants
to fill that fault line, he can always claim that nature involves cycles and
returns. Faced with that objection, I won’t affirm that he’s mad; I will just
suggest the terms you may use to respond.

这种原创性,这种突破是如此强烈,以致于我们忍不住要强调,假如我们想要清楚地看出,弗洛依德思想和精神分析经验所介绍的人的行为的观念,有何新颖之处。无可置疑地,假如我们想要填补那个断层线,他总是能够宣称,自然牵涉到循环和回转。当我面临那个反对,我将不会肯定说他发疯了。我将仅是建议你们可以使用那些术语来响应。

A natural cycle is perhaps immanent in everything that exists. Moreover,
it is highly diverse in its registers and levels. But I ask you to consider the
break that, in the order of the manifestation of the real embodied in the cycle,
is introduced by the simple fact that man is the bearer of language.

一个自然的循环或许是每样存在的东西的本质。而且,在它的铭记跟层次,它是五花八门。但是我要求你们考虑这个中断,在由循环具体代表的实在界的展示的秩序里。这个断裂被这个简单的事实所介绍:人是语言的载负者。

His relation to a couple of signifiers is all it takes, such as, for example, to
make a traditional reference in the sketchiest of modes, yin and yang, that is
to say, two signifiers, one of which is assumed to be eclipsed by the rise and
return of the other -I don’t care particularly for yin and yang; you can choose
sine and cosine instead if you like. In other words, the structure engendered
by memory must not in our experience mask the structure of memory itself
insofar as it is made of a signifying articulation. If you omit it, you absolutely
cannot maintain the register that is essential in the articulation of our experience,
namely, the autonomy, the dominance, the agency of remembering
as such, and not at the level of the real, but of the functioning of the pleasure
principle.

他跟两三个能指的关系是它所需要的。譬如,为了以传统方式提到模式的轮廓,阴和阳,换句话说,两个能指,其中一个被假定是由另外一个的上升与回转而有盈亏。我并不特别喜欢阴与阳的说法,你们喜欢,你们能够选择数学的正弦与余弦。换句话说,被记忆产生的结构,在精神分析经验,并没有遮蔽记忆本身的结构。因为它由能指化的表达所组成。假如你们省略它,你们绝对无法维持这个基本的铭记,在我们精神分析经验的表达。换句话说,支配电自主性,记忆本身的代理者,并不是在实在界的层次,而是在快乐原则的功用。

This is not a Byzantine discussion. Thus if we create a fault line and an
abyss, alternatively we fill in elsewhere something that also had the appearance
of a fault line and an abyss. And it is here that one can see that the
subject as such is born, a subject, moreover, whose emergence is unjustified
by anything else.

这并不是拜占庭的讨论。因此,假如我们创造断层线与深渊,我们轮流地在别的地方填补某件东西,这个东西也有断层线与深渊的外表。就在这里,我们能够看出,主体本身被诞生,而且,这一个主体的出现,无法用任何其他东西拉自圆其说。

As I have already pointed out, the finality of the evolution of matter toward
consciousness is a mystical, elusive notion, and one that is properly speaking
historically indeterminable. There is no homogeneity between the order of
the apparition of phenomena, whether they be premonitory, preliminary,
partial, or preparatory to consciousness, and any kind of natural order, because
it is through its current state that consciousness manifests itself as a phenomenon
whose activity is completely erratic and, I would even say, fragmented.
It is at levels that are very different from our relationship to our own real that
the mark or the touch of consciousness appears, but in the absence of any224 The ethics of psychoanalysis continuity or homogeneiety of consciousness. Freud came up against this fact more than once in his investigations, and he always emphasized the fact that consciousness cannot be functionalized.

我已经指出,物质朝向意识进化的终极性,是一个神秘而难以捉摸的观念。适当来说,这个观念在历史上是难以决定的。在现象的魅影的秩序,无论这些现象是意识的预兆,初级,部分,或准备,它们与任何种类的秩序之间,并没有任何的同质性。因为这是通过它的目前的状态,意识展现它自己,作为活动完全疯狂的一个现象。我甚至说,这个活动是碎片零乱。意识的标记或碰触,出现在我们跟自己的实在界的关系非常不同的层次。但是欠缺意识的连续性或同质性。不仅一次,在他的研究中,弗洛依德遭遇到这个事实,他总是强调这个事实:意识无法被形成功用化。

With relation to the functioning of the signifying chain, on the other hand,
our subject has a place in history that is quite solid and almost beatable. The
function of the subject on its emergence, of the original subject, of the subject
that may be traced in the chain of phenomena, we have a completely new
formula for him, one that is capable of objective localization. A subject originally
represents nothing more than the following fact: he can forget. Strike
out that “he”; the subject is literally at his beginning the elision of a signifier
as such, the missing signifier in the chain.

在另一方面,关于这个能指化的锁链的功用化,我们的主体在历史上,拥有相当牢靠,几乎耐得起敲打的一席之地。主体的功用在它出现时,原初主体的功用,在现象的锁链里,可以被追踪的主体的功用,我们有一个完全新颖的公式给他。这个公式能够客观性地找出位置。主体原初代表仅仅就是以下的事实:他会遗忘。请你们将这个「他」划掉。主体在开始时实质上尚一个能指本身的省略,在锁链里的这个失落的能指。

Such is the first place, the first person. Here the appearance of the subject
is manifested as such; and it makes us directly aware of why and in what way
the notion of the unconscious is central in our experience.

这就是最初的位置,最初的人。在此,主体的出现本身被展示,它让我们直接知道为什么及用什么方式,无意识的观念,在精神分析经验是中心位置。

If you start at that point, you will see the explanation of a great many
things, including that strange phenomenon that can be pinpointed in history
that we call rites. I mean those rites by which man in so-called primitive
civilizations believes he must accompany one of the most-natural things in
the world, namely, the return of natural cycles themselves.

假如你们在那时开始,你们将会看出许多事情的解释,包括那个在历史中能够被强调的奇特的现象,我们称之为仪式。我的意思是,凭借那些仪式,在所谓的原始的文明,人相信,他必须伴随着世界上,其中一个最自然的事情。换句话说,自然循环本身的回来。

If the Emperor
of China doesn’t start the ploughing at a given day in spring, the rhythm of
the seasons will be spoiled. If order is not preserved in the Royal House, the
domain of the sea will advance upon the domain of the land. We still find
echoes of this at the beginning of the sixteenth century in Shakespeare. What
is this, if it isn’t the essential relation, the one which binds the subject to the
production of meaning and which makes him from the beginning responsible
for forgetting?

假如中国皇帝并没有春天的某一天开始犁田,季节的节奏将会被破坏。假如在皇家宫廷,秩序没有被保持,海洋的领域将会侵犯到陆地的领域。在莎士比亚,十六世纪的开始,我们依旧找到有关这个循环的迴响。这是什么?它难道不是这个基本的关系?连接主体跟意义的产生的关系?让主体从一开始就是要负起遗忘的责任的关系?

What relation can there be between man and the return of the
sunrise, if it is not the case that as a speaking man he is sustained in a direct
relation to the signifier? To refer to myth, the original position of man in
relation to nature is that of Chantecler – which is a theme to be found in a
minor poet, who might be approached more sympathetically, if I hadn’t started
another seminar by denouncing the figure of Cyrano de Bergerac by reducing
him to a grotesque lucubration that had nothing to do with the monumental
structure of the character.

在人与太阳的回转之间,可能会有怎样的关系?它难道不就是这个情况:作为一位言说的人,维持他的就是跟这个能指的关系?提到神话,人跟自然的关系的这个原初的立场,那是公鸡的立场。这个主题在一位次要诗人那里能够被找到,虽然我们带着同情地探究这位次要诗人。假如我当时没有开始另外一个研讨班,抨击Cyrano de Bergerac的这个人物,将他化减成为一个古怪的精心钜作,跟这个人物的龐大的结构没有丝毫关系。

We have now reached the point where we must raise the question of the
good at this level.

我们现在已经到达这个点,在那里,我们必须提出在这个层次,善待这个问题。

陈春雄译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com