Ethic 224

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。

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: