幸福的要求与精神分析的展望

Ethic 291

XXII
第22章

The demand for happiness and
the promise of analysis
幸福的要求与精神分析的展望

DESIRE AND THE LAST JUDGMENT
欲望与最后审判

THE SECOND DEATH
二次死亡

THE FABLE OP THE CLODHOPPERS
厚鞋的寓言

HADES AND DIONYSOS
海地思与戴奥尼索斯

THE ANALYST’S DESIRE
精神分析家的欲望

The report I gave two years ago at Royaumont on “The Direction of the
Cure” is to appear in the next issue of our review. The text is somewhat
thrown together because I wrote it between two seminars I was giving here.
I shall keep its improvised form, although I will try to fill out and rectify
certain things to be found there.

两年前，我在罗夭曼发表这个报告「治疗的方向」。这篇报告将发表在我们的评论的下一期。这个文本是聚拢而成，因为我书写它，在我这里正在举行的两个研讨班之间。我将保留它急就章写成的形态，虽然我将尝试填补而且修正某些能够在那里发现的东西。

1
I said somewhere that an analyst has to pay something if he is to play his
role.
1
我在某个地方说过，精神分析家必须付出某件东西，假如他想要扮演这个角色。

He pays in words, in his interpretations. He pays with his person to the
extent that through the transference he is literally dispossessed. The whole
current development of analysis involves the misrecognition of the analyst,
but whatever he thinks of that and whatever panic reaction the analyst engages
in through “the countertransference,” he has no choice but to go through it.
He’s not the only one there with the person to whom he has made a commitment.

他用文字，用他的解释付出。他用他的人格付出，甚至凭借他的移情，他几乎是被剥夺所拥有的东西。精神分析的整个的目前的发展，牵涉到对精神分析家的误认，但是无论他怎么看法，无论精神分析家从事怎样的惊慌的反应，凭借「反移情」，他别无选择，除了经历它。他在那里并不是唯一具有这个人格的人，他曾经对这个人格做出献身奉献。

Finally, he has to pay with a judgment on his action. That’s the minimum
demanded. Analysis is a judgment. It’s required everywhere else, but if it
seems scandalous to affirm it here, there is probably a reason. It is because,
from a certain point of view, the analyst is fully aware that he cannot know
what he is doing in psychoanalysis. Part of this action remains hidden even
to him.

最后，他必须付出，用对于他的行动的判断。那是被要求的最基本。精神分析是一种判断。它在每个其他地方被要求。但是假如在此肯定它似乎是引起非议，可能有其理由。那是因为，从某个观点，精神分析家充分知道，他无法知道他在精神分析里正在做些什么。甚至他自己，部分的这个行动始终隐而不显。

And it is this that justifies the direction I have been taking you in this year,
the point to which I have suggested you follow me, namely, there where the
question of exploring the general ethical consequences involved in Freud’s
opening up of the relationship to the unconscious is raised.

就是这个证明我今年引导你们的这个方向是正确的。我曾经建议你们应该跟随我到达的这点。换句话说，这个问题被提出：在弗洛依德展开跟无意识的关系，所牵涉到探索通俗的伦理的各种结果。

I grant that there was the appearance of a detour, but it was necessary so
as to bring you closer to our ethics as analysts. A few reminders were neces-
sary before I could bring you closer to the practice of analysis and its technical
problems. In the present state of affairs, they can hardly be resolved through
such reminders.

我承认，外表上会有个迂回，但是这是必须的，为了要引导你们靠近我们作为精神分析家的伦理学。我需要做一些提醒，我才能够引导你们靠近精神分析的实践及其技术的问题。在目前的事情的状态，仅是凭借这样的提醒，它们几乎让人束手无策。

In the first place, is it the end of analysis that is demanded of us? What is
demanded can be expressed in a simple word, bonheur or “happiness,” as
they say in English. I’m not saying anything new in that; a demand for happiness
is doubtless involved here.

首先，我们所被要求的是精神分析的目标吗？所被要求的东西，能够用一个简单的字词「幸福」 或是「快乐」来表达吗？，如同他们在英文所说的。我并没有说出任何新的东西，因为对于快乐的要求在这里，无可置疑地会被牵涉到。

In the report I referred to earlier – which, now that I see it in print, seems
a little too aphoristic, which explains why I will attempt here to lubricate its
hinges a little – I allude to the question without explaining it further. The
business is not helped by the fact that happiness has become a political matter.
I won’t go any further into this, but it is the reason why I ended the
lecture called “Dialectical Psychoanalysis” – a lecture in which I brought to
an end a certain period of activity in a group that we have broken with since
– with the words, “There is no satisfaction for the individual outside of the
satisfaction of all.”

在我早先提到的这篇报告，现在我看到它被出版，它似乎有点太过于警语方式。它解释为什么我在此将会企图稍微润饰它一下。我提到这个问题，但是没有更进一步解释它。幸福已经成为是一件政治的事情，这个事实对于事情并没有帮助。我将不会更进一步讨论这个。但是它是这个理由，我结束我的演讲，题目是「辩证法的精神分析」。在这场演讲，我结束某个时期的团体活动，从此我跟这个团体就已经分道扬镳。我当时说：「个人无法在全体的满足外面，自寻满足。」

雄伯说
伟哉！拉康！有如无量寿佛的宏愿：「我当哀愍，度脱一切，十方众生，心悦清净，已至我国，快乐安稳。」

To refocus analysis on the dialectic makes evident the fact that the goal is
indefinitely postponed. It’s not the fault of analysis if the question of happiness
cannot be articulated in any other way at the present time. I would say
that it is because, as Saint-Just says, happiness has become a political matter.
It is because happiness has entered the political realm that the question of
happiness is not susceptible to an Aristotelian solution, that the prerequisite
is situated at the level of the needs of all men. Whereas Aristotle chooses
between the different forms of the good that he offers the master, and tells
him that only certain of these are worthy of his devotion – namely, contemplation
– the dialectic of the master has, I insist, been discredited in our eyes
for historical reasons that have to do with the period of history in which we
find ourselves. Those reasons are expressed in politics by the following formula:
“There is no satisfaction for the individual outside of the satisfaction
of all.”

将精神分析重新集中焦点于辩证法，可以凸显这个事实：目标无限期地被拖延。这并不是精神分析的过错，假如目前幸福的这个问题无法用别的方式来表达。我不妨说，这是因为，如同圣、噶思特所说，政治已经成为是一件政治的事情。那是因为幸福已经进入政治的领域，幸福的问题并不轻易接受亚里斯多德的解决方式。这个先决条件被定位在所有人类的需要的层次。虽然亚里斯多德在他提供给主人的不同形式的善行里作选择，并且告诉主人，这些善行仅有某些是值得他的奉献。换句话说，沉思。我坚持认为，在我们眼中，主人的辩证法已经不受到推崇，因为历史的理由必须跟我们发现自己所处的历史的时期有关。那些理由在政治上被表达，用以下的公式：「个人无法在全体的满足的外面，寻求满足。」

It is in such a context that analysis appears to be – without our being able
to explain why precisely it is the case in this context – and the analyst sets
himself up to receive, a demand for happiness.

精神分析家似乎就是处于这样的情境。我们无法解释为什么，确实就是在这个情境的情况，精神分析家从事接纳，对于幸福的要求。

I have set out to show you this year the distance traveled since Aristotle,
say, by choosing among some of the most crucial concepts. I wanted to make
you feel the extent to which we approach these things differently, how far we
are from any formulation of a discipline of happiness.
今年，我曾经开始跟你们显示，自从亚里斯多德以来所经历的旅程，譬如说，凭借在一些最重要的观念里选择。我想要让你们感觉这个程度，我们以不同方式探索这些事情的程度，我们距离幸福这个学科的的任何说明，还有多遥远。

There is in Aristotle a discipline of happiness. He shows the paths along
which he intends to lead anyone who is willing to follow him in his problematic,
paths which in different spheres of potential human activity lead to the
realization of one of the functions of virtue. Such virtue is achieved through
μίσότης, something that is far from being a simple golden mean or a process
linked to the avoidance of excess; instead it is supposed to enable man to
choose that which might reasonably allow him to realize himself in his own
good.

在亚里斯多德，有一门幸福的学科。他显示这些途径，沿着这些途径，他打算引导任何愿意跟随他的人，走上他的困难重重的途径。在各种不同的潜在的人类活动的领域，这些途径通往其中一个品德的功能的实现。这样的品德被获得，凭借某件绝非是单纯的中庸之道，或是跟避免过度相关的过程。代替的，它应该让人们选择，可能合理地让他凭借他自己的善实现他自己的东西。

Please note that one finds nothing similar in psychoanalysis. Along paths
that would appear surprising to someone straight out of high school, we claim
to allow the subject to put himself in a position such that things mysteriously
and almost miraculously work themselves out right, provided he grasp them
at the right end. Goodness only knows how obscure such a pretension as the
achievement of genital objecthood (I ‘objectalité genitale) remains, along with
what is so imprudently linked to it, namely, adjustment to reality.

请注意，我们在精神分析找不到任何类似的东西。沿着这些途径，某个刚从高中毕业的人会感到惊奇。我们宣称容许主体将他自己放置在这样一个立场，事情神秘而几乎奇迹地运作，只要他从适当的角度理解他们。只有天晓得，这样一种伪装始终是多么的模糊，如同性器官客体化的成就。外加不谨慎跟它联接在一块的东西。也就是说，跟现实适应的东西。

One thing only alludes to the possibility of the happy satisfaction of the
instinct, and that is the notion of sublimation. But it is clear that if one looks
at the most esoteric formulation of the concept in Freud, in the context of
his representing it as realized preeminently in the activity of the artist, it
literally means that man has the possibility of making his desires tradeable or
salable in the form of products. The frankness and even cynicism of such a
formulation has in my eyes a great merit, although it is far from exhausting
the fundamental question, and that is, How is it possible?

有一件东西仅是提到跟本能的快乐满足的可能性，那就是升华的观念。显而易见地，假如我们观看弗洛依德对于这个观念的奥秘的阐释，在他呈现它，作为特别是是在艺术家的活动，被实现的内涵。它几乎意味着，人拥有这个可能性：让他的各种欲望，可以用产品的形式，作为交易与销售。依我之见，这样一种阐释的坦率，甚至的嘲讽，具有很大的优点。虽然它绝对无法穷尽基本的问题。那就是，它如何是可能呢？

The other formulation consists of informing us that sublimation is the satisfaction
of the drive with a change of object, that is, without repression. This definition is a profounder one, but it would also open up an even knottier problematic, if it weren’t for the fact that my teaching allows you to spot where the rabbit is hidden.

另外一个阐释内容在于告诉我们，升华是以客体的转变，来满足冲动，换句话说，没有受到压抑。这种定义是一种更加深刻的定义，但是它也展开一个甚至更加纠缠的难题，假如不是因为这个事实：我的教学让你们能够觉察出兔子隐藏在哪里。

In effect, the rabbit to be conjured from the hat is already to be found in
the instinct. This rabbit is not a new object; it is a change of object in itself.
If the drive allows the change of object, it is because it is already deeply
marked by the articulation of the signifier. In the graph of desire that I gave
you, the instinct is situated at the level of the unconscious articulation of a
signifying series and is for this reason constituted as fundamental alienation.
That is why, on the other hand, each of the signifiers composing this series
is joined by a common element.

事实上，应该从帽子里被召唤出来的兔子，应该是已经在这个本能里。这隻兔子并不是一个新的客体。它是客体本身的改变。假如冲动容许客体改变，那是因为它已经深深地被这个能指的表达标记。在我给予你们的欲望的图形，本能被定位在一个能指系列的无意识表达的层次。因为这个理由，它被形成，作为是基本的异化。在另一方面，那就是为什么每个组成这个系列的能指，会跟一个共同的因素联接一块。

In the definition of sublimation as satisfaction without repression, whether
implicitly or explicitly, there is a passage from not-knowing to knowing, a
recognition of the fact that desire is nothing more than the metonymy of the
discourse of demand. It is change as such. I emphasize the following: the
properly metonymic relation between one signifier and another that we call
desire is not a new object or a previous object, but the change of object in
itself.

在升华的定义，作为没有受到压抑的满足，无论是含蓄或是明确，都会从未知通过到已知，体认到这个事实： 欲望仅仅就是要求的辞说的换喻。欲望就是变化的本身。我强调如下： 在一个能指与另外一个能指之间的适当的换喻的关系，我们称为这种适当换喻的关系的欲望，并不是一种新的客体，或是一个先前的客体，而是客体本身的变化。

Let me cite as an example something that occurred to me when I was
preparing these comments for you, so that I could give an image of what I
mean by sublimation. Think of the shift from a verb to what in grammar is
called its complement or, in a more philosophical grammar, its determinative. Think of the most radical of verbs in the development of the phases of
the drive, the verb “to eat.” There is “eating.” That is how the verb, the
action, appears head-first in many languages, before there is any determination
as to who is involved. Thus one sees here the secondary character of the
subject, since we don’t even have the subject, the something that is there to
be eaten.

让我引述某件我偶然想到的东西，作为例子，当我正在跟你们准备这些评论的时候。这样，我才能给予一个意象，对于我所说的升华是什么意思。请你们想想这个转变，从动词，转变到文法所谓的它的补语，或是，用更加是哲学的文法，它的决定词。请你们思考一下，在冲动的这些过程的发展，最为强烈的动词，「吃」这个动词。分词是「正在吃」。那就是为什么在许多语言里，这个动词，这个动作，首当其冲地出现。然后才有决定词，关于是谁牵涉在内。因此，我们在此看到，主体的第二个特性，因为我们甚至并没有这个主词，在那里的某件东西能够被吃。

There is eating – the eating of what? Of the book.

正在吃—什么东西正在被吃？书正在被吃。

When in the Apocalypse we read this powerful image, “eat the book,” what
does it mean? – if it isn’t that the book itself acquires the value of an incorporation,
the incorporation of the signifier itself, the support of the properly
apocalyptic creation. The signifier in this instance becomes God, the object
of the incorporation itself.

在圣经的「启示录」，我们阅读这个强而有力的意象：「吃这本书」。那是什么意思？难道不就是： 书的本身获得一种被融合的价值？这个能指本身的被融化，支持适当来说是世纪末的创造。在这个情况，这个能指变成上帝，被融合的本身的客体。

In daring to formulate a satisfaction that isn’t rewarded with a repression,
the theme that is central or preeminent is, What is desire? And in this connection
I can only remind you of what I have articulated in the past: realizing
one’s desire is necessarily always raised from the point of view of an absolute
condition. It is precisely to the extent that the demand always under- or
overshoots itself that, because it articulates itself through the signifier, it always
demands something else; that in every satisfaction of a need, it insists on
something else; that the satisfaction formulated spreads out and conforms to
this gap; that desire is formed as something supporting this metonymy, namely,
as something the demand means beyond whatever it is able to formulate. And
that is why the question of the realization of desire is necessarily formulated
from the point of view of a Last Judgment.

当我们大胆地阐释这样一种并没有受到压抑酬报的满足，作为中心或凸显的主题是：「欲望是什么？」关于这点，我仅能够提醒你们，我在过去曾经表达的东西：我们的欲望的实现，必然总是从一个绝对情况的观点被提出。甚至确实就是：这个要求总是没有被达到，或是被超过。因为它凭借这个能指来表达它自己，它总是要求某件其他的东西。在需求的每个满足里，它坚持某件其他东西；被阐释的满足展现开来，并且符合这个差距；欲望被形成，作为是某件支持这个换喻。换句话说，作为是要求意味的某件东西，超越它所能够阐释的东西。那就是为什么欲望的实现的问题，必然是从「最后审判」的观点来阐释。

Try to imagine what “to have realized one’s desire” might mean, if it is not
to have realized it, so to speak, in the end. It is this trespassing of death on
life that gives its dynamism to any question that attempts to find a formulation
for the subject of the realization of desire. To illustrate what I am saying,
if we pose directly the question of desire on the basis of that Parminedean
absolutism, which eliminates everything that is not being, then we will say,
nothing is from that which is not born, and all that exists lives only in the
lack of being.

请你们尝试想像「已经实现自己的欲望」会是意味著什么？它难道不是在最后，所谓的终于实现了它？就是死亡对于生命的这种逾越，给予它的动力，对于企图要找到阐释的问题，给实现欲望的主体。为了举例说明我正在说的东西，假如我们直接提出欲望的这个问题，根据巴门尼底斯的绝对主义的基础，它减掉一切并不存在的东西。那么我们将会说：没有一样东西的存在，是出诸于没有被诞生的东西； 所有存在的东西，仅是在存在的欠缺中生活著。

拉康：美的功能

3
One finds at this frontier another crossing point, which enables us to locate
Precisely an element of the field of the beyond-the-good principle. That element,
as I have said, is the beautiful.

我们在这个边界发现另外一个跨越点，它让我们能够确实找出超越这个善的原理的领域的一个因素。如同我曾经说过的，那个因素就是美。

I just want to introduce you to the problematic today. I will limit myself
to two articulations.

今天，我仅是想要跟你们介绍这个问题。我将限制我自己表达两点。

Freud was extremely prudent in this connection. On the nature of the
creation that is manifested in the beautiful, the analyst has by his own admission
nothing to say. In the sphere that calculates the value of the work of art,
we find ourselves reduced to a position that isn’t even that of schoolchildren,
but of pickers up of crumbs. Moreover, that’s not all, and Freud’s text is
very weak on the topic. The definition he gives of sublimation at work in
artistic creation only manages to show us the reaction or repercussions of the
effects of what happens at the level of the sublimation of the drive, when the
result or the work of the creator of the beautiful reenters the field of goods,
that is to say, when they have become commodities. One must recognize that
the summary Freud gives of the artist’s career is practically grotesque. The
artist, he says, gives a beautiful form to the forbidden object in order that
everyone, by buying his little artistic product, rewards and sanctions his daring.
That is a way of shortcircuiting the problem. And Freud is perfectly
aware of the limits he imposes on himself in a way that is perfectly obvious
when the problem of creation – which he leaves aside as outside the range of
our experience – is added to it.

关于这一点，弗洛依德极端谨慎。探讨在美当中被显示的创造的特性，这位精神分析家并没有容许他有什么话可说。在评估艺术作品的价值的领域，我们发现我们自己被沦为甚至连学童的立场都不如，而仅是沦为拾人牙慧的立场。而且，不仅如此，弗洛依德的文本对于那个议题，非常薄弱。他给予在艺术创造运行的升华的定义，仅是成功于跟我们显示，在冲动的升华的层次，所发生的事情的影响的反应或反弹。当美的创造者的结果或作品，重新进入善的领域，换句话说，当它们已经变成货品。我们必须承认，弗洛依德给予艺术家的生涯的总结，几乎是怪诞的。他说，艺术家给予一个美的形式，给被禁止的客体，为了让每个人，凭借购买他的小小的艺术作品，酬报及认可他的大胆。这是对问题避重就轻的探究方式。弗洛依德完全知道他赋加给他自己的限制。当创造的问题被增加到它上面时，这种方式非常显而易见。他将创造的问题搁置一边，作为是我们精神分析经验的范围之外。

We are thus brought back again to all the pedantic thoughts that in the
course of centuries have been expressed about the beautiful.

我们因此再次被带回到，几世纪的过程，有关美曾经被表达过的所有引经据典的思想。

Everyone knows that in every field those who have something to say–that
is in this case the creators of beauty – are understandably the most dissatisfied
by pedantic formulas. Yet something that has been expressed by almost
all of them, especially by the best but also at the level of common experience,
does make the rounds, namely, that there is a certain relationship between
beauty and desire.

众所周知，在每个领域，有话要说的那些人。在这个情况，也就是美的创造者—我们可以理解到，根据引经据典的公式，他们是最不感到满意的。可是，几乎所有这些人都曾经表达某件事情，特别是那些最优秀，而且也是处于共同经验的层次。这个某件事情确实巡回几次，换句话说，美与欲望之间，有某种的关系。

This relationship is strange and ambiguous. On the one hand, it seems that
the horizon of desire may be eliminated from the register of the beautiful.
Yet, on the other hand, it has been no less apparent – from the thought of
antiquity down to Saint Thomas who has some valuable things to say on the
question – that the beautiful has the effect, I would say, of suspending, lowering,
disarming desire. The appearance of beauty intimidates and stops desire.

这个关系是奇怪而暧昧。在一方面，欲望的这个领域似乎可能会从美的铭记被减少。可是，另一方面，它同样显而易见。从古代的思想，到圣、汤玛斯，关于这个问题，他有某些有价值的话要说： 我不妨说，美具有悬置，降低，解除欲望的效用。美的出现让欲望受到惊吓与阻止。

That is not to say that on certain occasions beauty cannot be joined to
desire, but in a mysterious way, and in a form that I can do no better than
refer to by the term that bears within it the structure of the crossing of some
invisible line, i.e., outrage. Moreover, it seems that it is in the nature of the
beautiful to remain, as they say, insensitive to outrage, and that is by no
means one of the least significant elements of its structure.

那并不是说，在某些的场合，美无法跟欲望沆瀣一气。而是以神秘的方式，以一种我充其量仅能提到的形式，根据这个术语：在它里面，具有某种隐形界限的跨越的结构，譬如，愤怒。而且，似乎在美的这个特性，如人们所说，美对于愤怒始终无动于衷。那绝对不是它的结构的最微不足道的因素之一。

I will show it to you then in the detail of analytical experience, show it to
you with pointers that will enable you to be alert to it when it occurs in an
analytical session. With the precision of a Geiger counter, you can pick it up
by means of references to the aesthetic register that the subject will give you
in his associations, in his broken, disconnected monologue, either in the form
of quotations or of memories from his schooldays. You don’t, of course, always
deal with creators, but you do deal with people who have had a relationship
to the conventional sphere of beauty. You can be sure that the more these
references become strangely sporadic and peremptory with relation to the
text of the discourse, the more they are correlative of something that makes
its presence felt at that moment, and that belongs to the register of a destructive
drive. It is at the very moment when a thought is clearly about to appear
in a subject, as in the narration of a dream for example, a thought that one
recognizes as aggressive relative to one of the fundamental terms of his subjective
constellation, that, depending on his nationality, he will make some
reference to a passage from the Bible, to an author, whether a classic or not,
or to some piece of music. I mention this today to show that we are not far
from the very text of our experience.

我将用精神分析经验的细节，跟你们显示美，用这些指标跟你们显示它。这些指标将让你们能够警觉到它，当美发生在精神分析的谘商。用盖革计数器的准确性，你们能够获得美，凭借提到美的铭记，主体将会给予你们的铭记，在他的联想，在他断断续续，不连贯的独白，不管是用引文的方式，或是从他童年的回忆。当然，你们并没有总是跟创造者打交道，但是你们确实处理这些人们，他们跟美的传统的领域有关系。你们能够确定，这些指称变得更加奇特地间歇性与武断性，跟辞说的文本的关系，它们就是跟某件东西息息相关，在那个时刻，那个东西让美的存在被感觉到。那属于毁灭的冲动的铭记。就在那个时刻，当一个思想清楚地即将出现在一个主体身上，如同在梦的描述当中，譬如，我们体认出的思想，作为是攻击性，相对于他的主观性的汇集的基本术语。取决于他的国籍，他将提到圣经的某个段落，提到一位作者，无论是古典与否，或是提到某首音乐曲子。今天，我提到这个，为了显示，我们距离我们精神分析经验的文本，并不遥远。

The beautiful in its strange function with relation to desire doesn’t take us
in, as opposed to the function of the good. It keeps us awake and perhaps
helps us adjust to desire insofar as it is itself linked to the structure of the
lure.

相关于欲望，美的奇特的功能，并没有将我们算在里面，作为是跟善的功能的相对立。美让我们保持清醒，或许帮助我们适应欲望。因为它的本身连接到陷阱的结构。

You can see this place illustrated by the fantasm. If there is “a good that
mustn’t be touched,” as I was saying earlier, the fantasm is “a beauty that
musn’t be touched,” in the structure of this enigmatic field.

你们能够看出幻影所启明的这个位置。假如有一种善一定不要被碰触，如无早先说的，幻影是「一种一定不要碰触的美」，在谜团领域的结构。

The first side of this field is known to us, it is the side that along with the
pleasure principle prevents us from entering it, the side of pain.

我们知道这个领域的第一面。就是这一面，跟快乐原则一块，阻止我们不要进入它，痛苦的这一面。

We must ask ourselves what it is that constitutes that field. The death
drive, says Freud, primary masochism. But isn’t that to take too big a leap?
Is the pain that denies access to the side the whole content of the field? Are
all those who express demands for this field masochists after all? And I can
tell you right off, I don’t think so.

我们必须询问我们自己，是什么组成这个领域。弗洛依德说，这是死亡冲动，原初的自虐狂。但是那难道不是要跳跃一大步吗？拒绝进入这一面的痛苦，难道就是这个领域的完整内容吗？所有那些表达对这个领域要求的人们，毕竟都是自虐狂吗？我能够马上告诉你们，我并不这样认为。

Masochism is a marginal phenomenon and it possesses something almost
caricatural that moral inquiry at the end of the nineteenth century has pretty
much laid bare. The economy of masochistic pain ends up looking like the
economy of goods. One wants to share pain as one shares heaps of other
things that are left over; and one even comes close to fighting over it.

自虐狂是一个边缘的现象。它拥有某件几乎是嘲讽的东西。在十九世纪末，道德的探讨曾经将这个东西揭露出来。自虐狂的痛苦的经济学，结果看起来像是善的经济学。我们想要分享痛苦，如同我们想要分析一大堆其余剩下的东西，我们甚至几乎要战斗来获得它。

But isn’t there something there that involves a panicky return to the dialectic
of goods? In truth, the whole behavior of the masochist – and I mean by
that the perverse masochist – points to the fact that it is a question of a
structural feature in his behavior. Read Mr. Sacher-Masoch. He’s an
enlightening writer, although he doesn’t have the stature of Sade, and you
will see that in the end the point aimed at by the position of the perverse
masochist is the desire to reduce himself to this nothing that is the good, to
this thing that is treated like an object, to this slave whom one trades back
and forth and whom one shares.

但是难道没有某件东西，牵涉到惊慌地回到善的辨证法吗？事实上，自虐狂的整个的行为，我的意思是指倒错的自虐狂，指向这个事实：这是在他的行为，一种结构性特征的问题。请阅读萨奇尔、马索奇。他是一位启明的作家。虽然他并没有萨德那样的地位。你们将会看出，最后，倒错的自虐狂的立场指向的目标，就是欲望要将他自己沦为这个空无，善的空无，沦为被对待像个客体的东西，沦为这个奴隶，我们来回交换的奴隶，我们分享的奴隶。

But one shouldn’t after all proceed too quickly to break inventive homonymy, and the fact the masochism has been called by this name for so long by psychoanalysis is not without reason. The unity that emerges from all the fields which analytical thought has labeled masochism has to do with the fact that in all these fields pain shares the character of a good.

但是我们毕竟不应该进行太快，以致无法打破翻来复去的陈词，自虐狂这个词语尝久以来受到精神分析採用，这个事实并非没有原因。从所有领域出现的这个一致性，精神分析思想曾经将这些领域标记为自虐狂。这个一致性跟这个事实有关系：在所有的这些领域，痛苦分享善行的特性。

We will continue our inquiry next time with relation to a document.

下次，我们将继续我们的研究，跟一个文件有关。

It’s not exactly a new document. Down through the centuries longwinded
commentators have cut their teeth and sharpened their nails on it. This text
appeared in the field where the morality of happiness was theorized and it
gives us its underlying structure. It is there that its underlying structure is
the most visible, there where it appears on the surface. That which over the
centuries has caused the greatest problems, from Aristotle down to Hegel
and Goethe, is a tragedy, one that Hegel considered the most perfect, but for
the wrong reason, namely, Antigone.

这不确实是一个新的文件。经过几世纪以来，长篇大论的评论家曾经从它那里获得宝贵经验及磨练他们的技巧。这个文本出现在这个领域，在那里，快乐的道德被理论化，它给予我们它的作为基础的结构。就在那里，它的作为基础的结构是最看得见，在那里，它出现在表面。过去几世纪来，曾经引起最大的难题的东西，自从亚里斯多德，一直到黑格尔与歌德。这是一个悲剧，黑格尔认为最完美的悲剧，但是理由并不正确，换句话说，那就是安提贡尼。

Antigone’s position relates to a criminal good. One would have to have a
character that was deeply out of touch with the cruelties of our time to attack
the subject, if I may say so, by focusing on the tyrant.

安提贡尼的立场跟犯罪的善息息相关。我们将必须要有一个人物，跟我们时代的各种残酷完全不相涉及，我们才能攻击这位主体。容我这样说，凭借专主于这位暴君。

We will, therefore, take up the text of Antigone together, since it will enable
us to point to a fundamental moment, to reach an essential reference point in
our investigation of what it is man wants and what he defends himself against.
We will see what an absolute choice means, a choice that is motivated by no
good.
May 18, 1960

因此，我们将会一起来探讨安提贡尼的这个文本。因为它将让我们能够指向一个基本的时刻，到达一个基本的指称点，当我们研究一个人到底想要什么，他防卫自己对抗什么。我们将会看出，绝对的选择是什么，这一个选择并非是由善来引起动机。
1960年，5月18日

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

拉康：美的功能

Ethic 231
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVIII
第十八章

The function of the beautiful
美的功能

THE DUPLICITY OF THE GOOD
善的欺骗

ON THE POTLATCH
论庆贺仪式

THE DISCOURSE OF SCIENCE FORGETS NOTHING
科学辞说什么都没忘记

OUTRAGE AND PAIN
愤怒与痛苦

It seemed to me this morning that it wasn’t inappropriate to begin my seminar
by asking the question, Have we crossed the line?

今天早上，我觉得，若是用询问问题来开始我的研讨班，并非不合适。

I don’t mean in what we are doing here, but in what is happening out there
in the world in which we live. It isn’t because what is occurring there makes
such a vulgar noise that we should refuse to hear it.

我指的并不是目前我们在此的作为，而是在我们居住的世界，所正在发生的事情。那并不是因为那里所正在发生的事情，发出如此下流的噪音，以致于我们应该拒绝倾听。

At a time when I am speaking to you about the paradox of desire – in the
sense that different goods obscure it – you can hear outside the awful language
of power. There’s no point in asking whether they are sincere or hypocritical,
whether they want peace or whether they calculate the risks. The
dominating impression at such a moment is that of something that may pass
for a prescribed good; information addresses and captures impotent crowds
to whom it is poured forth like a liquor that leaves them dazed as they move
toward the slaughter house. One might even ask if one would allow the cataclysm
to occur without first giving free reign to this hubbub of voices.

正当我跟你们谈论欲望的矛盾，因为不同的善模糊它，你们能够听见，在权力的可怕的语言之外。这是没有意义的，去询问你们是否诚恳或伪善，你们是否想要和平，或他们是否评估过这个冒险。在这样一个时刻，最佔上风的印象是，可能被认为是被指定的善的某些的印象。束手无策的群众接收各种资讯并受到影响。这些资讯就像烈酒，让他们乾杯喝下，然后醉醺醺地朝向屠宰场前进。我们甚至询问，我们是否容许灾难发生，是因为我们没有节制地让众声喧哗。

Is there anything more disconcerting than the transmission via those little
machines that we all possess of what are known as press conferences? Or, in
other words, questions that are stupidly repeated to which the leader replies
with a false casualness, while he calls for more interesting questions and even
on occasion engages in witticisms.

还有什么东西比起众所周知的新闻记者会，我们大家拥有的那些媒体的传播更加令人狼狈？或者，换句话说，领导者用虚假的漫不经心而愚蠢重复回答的那些问题。当他呼吁更加有趣的问题，甚至有时候还卖弄几句机锋妙答。

There was one somewhere yesterday, in Paris or in Brussels, that told us
about our gloomy future. I swear it was absurd. Don’t you think that the
only way to adjust our hearing to what is proclaimed may be formulated along
the lines of “What does it mean? What is it aiming at?” Yet everyone falls
asleep on the soft pillow of “It’s not possible” – whereas, in fact, nothing is
more possible, the possible is above all that. That’s possible because the possible
is that which can answer man’s demand, and because man doesn’t know
what he is setting in motion with his demand.

昨天在某个地方，在巴黎或布鲁塞尔。有某个人告诉我们，关于我们暗淡的前途。我敢确定说，那是荒谬的。你们难道不认为，调整我们的耳朵倾听所被宣告的东西，仅有的方法可以用这几句来说明：「那是什么意思？它的目的何在？」可是，每个人却都安然入睡，当听到「这是不可能的」。事实上，最有可能的恰恰就是那件事。尤其重要的是，那是可能的事。那是可能的，因为可能的事是回应人的要求的东西。因为人并不知道，他用他的要求触动什么。

The frightening unknown on the other side of the line is that which in man
we call the unconscious, that is to say the memory of those things he forgets.
And the things he forgets – you can see in which way – are those things in
connection with which everything is arranged so that he doesn’t think about
them, i.e., stench and corruption that always yawn like an abyss. For life
after all is rottenness.

这个句子的另外一个的可怕的未知，在人身上，我们称为是无意识的东西。换句话说，他忘记的那些事情的记忆。他忘记的那些事情—你们看见是哪个方式—跟那些事情有关，每样东西都被安排，以致他没有思考到它。譬如，恶臭与腐败总是像深渊展开。因为生命毕竟就是腐烂。

And it is even more so recently, since the anarchy of forms, that second
destruction that Sade was talking about the other day in the quotation I read
you – the destruction that calls for subversion even beyond the cycle of generation-
corruption – are for us pressing problems. The possibility of a second
destruction has suddenly become a tangible reality for us, including the threat
of anarchy at the level of the chromosomes of a kind that could break the ties
to given forms of life. Monsters obsessed a great deal those who up to the
eighteenth century still attributed a meaning to the word “Nature.” It has
been a long time since we accorded any importance to calves with six feet or
children with two heads. Yet we may now perhaps see them appear in the
thousands.

最近更是变本加厉，因为形态的混乱，对于我们而言，是这个迫切的问题。前天我朗读给你们听的引文，萨德谈论的二次毁灭。这个毁灭要求颠覆，甚至超越世代的循环，那就是腐败。对于我们而言，第二次毁灭的可能性已经突然变成是说一个具体的现实，包括混乱的威胁，在某种遗传因子的层次。这些遗传因子能够打破跟生命的特定形式的关系。直到十八世纪，那些将意义归属于「自然」这个字词的那些人，相当受到怪物的著魔。长久以来，我们曾经对于具有六隻脚的小牛，或具有两个头颅的小孩，认为是罕见之物。可是，我们现在可能看见他们上千地出现。

That is why when we ask what is beyond the barrier erected by the structure
of the world of the good – where is the point on which this world of the
good turns, as we wait for it to drag us to our destruction – our question has
a meaning that you would do well to remember has a terrifying relevance.

那就是为什么当我们询问，是什么超越善的世界的结构竖立的障碍。好心有好报的这个世界有什么意义？当我们等待它带领我们走向毁灭。我们的问题具有意义，你们最好记住，这个意义具有可怕的关联性。

1
What is beyond this barrier? Don’t forget that if we know there is a barrier
and that there is a beyond, we know nothing about what lies beyond.

超越这个阻碍之外是什么呢? 不要忘记，假如我们知道有一个阻碍，有一个超越之外，我们对超越以外的东西一无所知。

It is a false beginning to say, as on the basis of our experience some have,
that it is the world of fear. To center our life, even our religion, on fear as a
final term is an error. Fear with its ghosts is a localizable defense, a protection
against something that is beyond, and which is precisely something unknown
to us.

这是一个虚假的开始，假如我们说那是一个恐惧的世界，根据某些人曾经有过的经验。这是一个错误，将我们的生命，甚至我们的宗教，专注于恐惧，作为一个最后的术语。对于生命的鬼魂的恐惧，是一种可定位的防卫，一种保护某件属于超越的东西，那确实是某件我们一无所知的东西。

It is at the moment when these things are possible but wrapped in the
injunction “Thinking about them is prohibited,” that it is appropriate to
point out the distance and the proximity that links this possible to those
extraordinary texts that I have chosen this year as the fulcrum of my proof,
namely, Sade’s works.

就在这个时刻，当这些事情是可能的，但是被包裹在这个命令里:「思考它们是被禁止的。」这是合宜的做法，假如我们指出这个距离与靠近，联接这个可能性，跟那些特别的文本。今年我曾经跟你们选出的文本，作为是我的证据的轴纽。换句话说，萨德的著作。

One doesn’t have to read very far for this collection of horrors to engender
incredulity and disgust in us, and it is only fleetingly, in a brief flash, that
such images may cause something strange to vibrate in us which we call perverse
desire, insofar as the darker side of natural Eros enters into it.

我们并不需要很深入阅读，就会对这本恐惧的文集，产生匪夷所思与厌恶之感。仅在简短的瞬间，这些意象就可能在我们身上，引起某件奇怪的共鸣的东西。我们称为是倒错的欲望，因为自然的性爱的黑暗的一面，在里就表露无遗。

In the end, any imaginary or indeed real relationship to the research appropriate
to perverse desire only suggests the incapacity of natural desire, of the
natural desire of the senses, to go very far in this direction. On this path, this
desire quickly gives up, is the first to give up. It is no doubt understandable
if modern man’s thought seeks the beginning, the trace, the point of departure
there, the path toward self-knowledge, toward the mystery of desire,
but, on the other hand, all the fascination that this beginning exercises over
both scientific and literary studies – witness for example the revels to be
found in the works of the not untalented author of Sexus, Plexus and Nexus1
-founders on a rather sterile pleasure-taking. We must be lacking in the
proper method, if everything that has been elaborated on the topic by writers
or scientists was outdistanced in advance some time ago, was rendered thoroughly
outdated by the lucubrations of someone who was only after all a
country squire, a social example of the degeneration of the nobility at a time
when its privileges were about to be abolished.

最后，任何的意象，或确实是跟倒错的欲望的合宜的研究，具有真实的关系，都暗示着，自然欲望的无能为力，朝这个方向深入前进，各种感官的自然欲望。在这条途径，这个欲望很快就放弃，它是最早放弃的欲望。无可置疑，我们能够了解，假如现代人的思想寻求这个开始，这个痕迹，那里的出发点，朝向了解自我的途径，朝向欲望的神秘。但是，在另一方面，这个开始运作的所有的著迷，对于科学与文学的研究—譬如，它见证能够被寻找到的狂喜，在「性、淋巴管、脑波」的天才横溢的作者的著作里。它们是寻欢作乐，无能为力的始作甬者。我们一定欠缺合宜的方法，假如针对这个主题，作家或科学家建构的一切，不久以前，预先被拉开距离，而且已经完全落伍，由于某个人的润色，这个人毕竟仅是一位乡绅，贵族堕落的社会典型，处于贵族特权即将被废除的时代。

It is nevertheless the case that Sade’s extraordinary catalogue of horrors,
which causes not only the senses and human possibilities but the imagination,
too, to flinch, is nothing at all compared to what will, in effect, be seen on a
collective scale, if the great and very real explosion occurs that threatens us
all. The only difference between Sade’s exorbitant descriptions and such a
catastrophe is that no pleasure will enter into the motivation of the latter.
Not perverts but bureaucrats will set things off, and we won’t even know if
their intentions were good or bad. Things will go off by command; they will
be carried through according to regulations, mechanically, down the chain of
command, with human wills bent, abolished, overcome, in a task that ceases
to have any meaning. That task will be the elimination of an incalculable
waste that reveals its constant and final dimension for man.

可是，萨德对于恐惧的特别的目录，就是这个情况。这个恐惧目录不但产生各种感觉与人类的可能性，而且产生退缩的想象。实际上，跟集体规模所被看见的东西比较起来，根本就是微不足道。在萨德如何夸张的描述与如此的灾难之间，唯一的差别是，快乐并没有被算入后者的动机。引发灾难的人并非是倒错者，而是官僚人员。我们甚至无法知道，他们的意图是善或是恶。事情将会因为命令而触动，它们将被会依照规定被贯彻到底，机械式的，贯彻到命令的锁链，人的意志被扭曲，被废除，被压倒，在不再有任何意义的工作里。那件工作就是减少无以数计的废料，这些废料显示它的不断而最后的维度，对于人类。

Let us not forget that that has, in effect, always been one of the dimensions
in which we can recognize what a fond dreamer once charmingly referred to
as “the humanization of the planet.” There’s never any problem in recognizing
man’s passage through the world, his footstep, mark, trace, touch; there
where one finds a huge accumulation of oyster shells, only man can have
manifestly been. The geological ages have left their waste, too, waste that
allows us to recognize order. But the pile of garbage is one of the sides of the
human dimension that it would be wrong to mistake.

让我们不要忘记，事实上，总是有一种维度，让我们能够体认出，一位可爱的梦想家曾经迷人地提到，作为是「地球行星的人性化」。这从来就不是困难，要体认出人类在这个世界经历的过程，他的足迹，标记，痕迹，碰触。在那里，我们找到一大堆的牡蛎贝壳。显而易见，仅有人类当时才有那个可能。地质的年代也曾经留下他的废料，让我们能够体认出秩序。但是这堆垃圾是人类维度的其中一名，假如我们误认，将是一种错误。

Having sketched the outlines of this sepulchral mound at the limit of the
politics of the good, of the general good, of the good of the community, we
will pick up again where we left off last time.

当我们已经描绘这个坟墓的轮廓，用善的政治学，一般的善，社会的善的政治学，我们再一次学习到上次我们停止讨论的东西。

What is the sphere of the search for the good composed of, once it has been
undeceived of the error of judgment that I cited by way of example in Saint
Augustine?

对于善的寻求的范围的是什么？一旦它被构想是我引述的判断的错误，凭借圣奥古斯丁的典范。

His reasoning is as follows: it is by the mental process of the subtraction
°f the good from the good that one ends up refuting the existence of anything
else but the good in being, given that that which remains, since it is more
perfect than that which previously was, can in no way be evil. Saint Augustine’s
reasoning here is calculated to surprise us, and we cannot help wondering
what the historical emergence of such a form of thought signifies. It’s a
question I will leave open.

他的推理如下：凭借善行从善行扣减的精神的过程，我们结果会反驳任何东西的存在，除了生命实存的善，假如我们考虑到，所剩余的东西绝非是邪恶，因为它比先前存在的东西更加完美。圣奥古斯丁在此的推理，让我们感到出其不意，我们忍不住想要知道，这样一种思想在历史上出现，意味着什么。这是一个我将要开展的问题。

Last time we defined the good in symbolic creation as the initium that is
the point of departure of the human subject’s destiny in his coming to terms
with the signifier. The true nature of the good, its profound duplicity, has to
do with the fact that it isn’t purely and simply a natural good, the response
to a need, but possible power, the power to satisfy. As a result, the whole
relation of man to the real of goods is organized relative to the power of the
other, the imaginary other, to deprive him of it.

上一次我们用象征的创作来定义善行，作为是人类主体的命运的出发点，当他跟这个能指妥协时。善行的真实特性，它的深奥的欺骗性，必须跟这个事实有关系：这并不是一个单纯的自然的善行，对于需要的回应，而是可能的权力，满足的权力。结果，人跟善行的真实的完整关系被组织，相对于他者的权力，想象的他者，为了剥夺掉他的这个权力。

Let us recall the terms around which, in the first year of my seminar devoted
to Freud’s Technical Writings, I organized the ideal ego and the ego ideal,
terms that I represented in my graph. The big I designates the identification
of omnipotence with the signifier, with the ego ideal. On the other hand, as
image of the other, it is the Urbild of the ego, the original form on the basis
of which the ego models itself, sets itself up, and operates under the auspices
of pseudomastery. We will now define the ego ideal of the subject as representing
the power to do good, which then opens up within itself the beyond
that concerns us today. How is it that as soon as everything is organized
around the power to do good, something completely enigmatic appears and
returns to us again and again from our own action – like the ever-growing
threat within us of a powerful demand whose consequences are unknown?
As for the ideal ego, which is the imaginary other who faces us at the same
level, it represents by itself the one who deprives us.

让我们回想一下这些术语。环绕这些术语，在我的研讨班的第一年，专注于探讨弗洛依德的「技术性的著作」。我整理理想自我与自我理想，我用我的图形来代表这些术语。这个大写的字母「I」，指明全能跟能指的认同，跟自我理想的认同。在另一方面，作为他者的意象，自我的这个「原型」，原初的形式，根据它作为基础，自我模拟它自己，建立它自己，并且在虚假控制的背书下运作。我们现在定义主体的自我理想，作为代表从事善行的权力，它因此在它自身之内，展开这个超越，今天我们关怀的这个超越。当每样东西都被组织，环绕着从事善行的权力，某件完全是谜团的东西出现，并且一再地从我们自己的行动回到我们。就像我们自身之内，一种强力的要求逐渐增加的威胁。它的结果是未知。这是如何形成呢？至于理想的自我，这是想象的他者，在相同的层次，跟我们面对。它本身就代表剥夺我们的这个自我。

At these two poles of the structuralization of the world of goods, what is it
we see outlined?

在善行的世界的结构化的两极，我们看到什么轮廓被描绘？

On the one hand, starting with the unveiling with which the revelation of
classical philosophy terminates, that is to say, starting with the point at which
Hegel is said to have been stood on his feet, the social conflict proves to be
the thread which gives meaning to the enlightened segment of history in the
classical sense of the term.

在另一方面，从这个揭露开始，古典哲学的启示，以这种揭露作为终结。换句话说，从这个时刻开始，据说黑格尔在这个时刻独立自主，社会的冲突证明是这个线索，赋予意义，给历史的启蒙的部分，在这个术语的古典意义。

On the other hand, at the other end, there appears something that looks to
us like a question offering hope.

在另一方面，在另一端，某件东西出现，对于我们而言，它看起来像是提供希望的问题。

2
Scientific research conducted in what is problematically referred to as the
“human sciences” has revealed that for a very long time, outside the domain
of classical history, man in non-historical societies has, it is believed, invented
a practice conceived to have a salutary function in the maintenance of intersubjective
relations. In my eyes this is like the little stone that was miraculously made to inform us that not everything is caught up in the necessary dialectic of the competition for goods, of the conflict between goods, and of the necessary catastrophe that it gives rise to, and that, moreover, in the world we are exploring, there have existed signs that positively show how men have thought that the destruction of goods as such might be a function expressive of value.

科学的研究被进行，以具有争议性地被提到作为「人文科学」。科学的研究曾经显示，有很长一段时间，在古典历史的领域外面，大家相信，处于非历史的社会的人类，曾经发明一种做法。这种做法被构想具有致敬的功用，来维持互为主体间性的关系。依我之见，这是像这块奇迹一般地被形成的小石头，为了告诉我们，并不是每样东西都深陷于这个必须要的辩证法：为了获得善行的競争，各种善行之间的冲突。也并不是每样东西都深陷于它产生的这个必须要的灾难。而且，在我们正在探索的世界，曾经存在着一些迹象。这些迹象积极地显示，人类曾经认为，善行本身的毁灭，很可能是表达价值的功用。

I assume you are all well enough informed so that I don’t have to remind
you what a potlatch is. Let me just note briefly that it concerns ritual ceremonies
involving the extensive destruction of a variety of goods, consumer
goods as well as luxury goods and goods for display. The practice is found in
societies that are now no more than relics, vestiges of a form of human social
existence that our expansion has tended to wipe out. The potlatch bears witness
to man’s retreat from goods, a retreat which enabled him to link the
maintenance and discipline of his desire, so to speak – insofar as this is what
concerns him in his destiny – to the open destruction of goods, that were
both personal and collective property. The problem and the drama of the
economy of the good, its ricochets and rebounds, all turn on this point.

我认为你们大家都已知识广博，我就不必提醒你们，庆典赠礼是怎么一回事。让我仅是简短提示：有关的典礼仪式，牵涉将各种的货物广泛地毁灭，消费者的货物，以及奢侈货物，与展示货物。这种做法被发现，在现在仅剩遗迹的社会，某种人类社会的存在的遗迹，我们的扩展曾经倾向于扑灭它。这种庆典赠礼见证人类从货物撤退，这种撤退让他能够连接他的欲望的维持与纪律，也就是说，这是在他的命运，这跟他息息相关，对于货物的公开毁灭，那些货物既是私人，也是集体的财产。货物的经济学的问题与戏剧，它的反作用与反弹，都在这个时刻反转。

Furthermore, as soon as that key is given us, we clearly see that it is not
simply the privilege of primitive societies. I couldn’t find today the piece of
paper on which I noted that at the beginning of the twelfth century – that
through courtly love marked the rise to the surface in European culture of a
problematic of desire as such – we see appear in a feudal rite the manifestation
of something wholly analogous. The rite in question occurred at a festival,
a meeting of barons somewhere in the region of Narbonne, and it involved
huge destruction, not only of the goods that were consumed directly as part
of the festivities, but also of animals and harnesses. Everything occurred as
if the foregrounding of the problematic of desire required as its necessary
correlative the need for ostentatious forms of destruction, insofar as they are
gratuitous. Those who in the community claim to be privileged subjects,
feudal Lords, those who set themselves up as such in this ceremony, throw
down challenges to each other, rival each other in attempting to destroy the
most.

而当答案被给予我们，我们清楚地看出，这并不仅是原始社会的特权。我今天无法找到那张纸，在那里，我注意到，在十二世纪的开始，在欧洲文化，凭借骑士之爱，欲望本身呈现问题浮上表面作为标记，我们看见某件完全类同的东西出现在封建的仪式里。受到质疑的仪式发生在庆典，在拿邦尼的地区的某个地方，男爵们的会聚。它牵涉到巨大的毁灭，不但被消耗的货物，直接作为各种庆典的部分，而且动物与农具。每样东西发生，好像欲望呈现问题的前景，要求毁灭的华丽的形式的需求，来作为它必须的相关因素，因为它们是无因无常的。那些在社区的人们，宣称是具有特权的主体，封建的领主，在这个典礼展现他们自己的那些人，他们互相抛出挑战，匹敌对方，企图做最大量的毁灭。

This is at the other extreme the only example we have of the order of
destruction that is carried out consciously and in a controlled way, that is to
say, in a very different way from that massive destruction which we have all
witnessed, given that we belong to generations that are relatively close to it.
This latter destruction seems to us to be an inexplicable accident, a resurgence
of savagery, whereas it is rather necessarily linked to the leading edge
of our discourse.

另外一个极端，这是我们拥有的仅有的例子，关于毁灭的秩序。它刻意地被实现，以一种节制的方式，换句话说，以跟巨大毁灭不同的方式，我们都已经见证到，假如考虑到，我们属于比较靠近它的那些世代。我们觉得，这个后者的毁灭是个匪夷所思的意外，野蛮的重新涌现。这跟我们辞说的主要优势必然是息息相关。

A new problem arises for us, one that even Hegel found obscure. For a
long time in The Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel tried to articulate the problem
of human history in terms of conflicts between discourses. The tragedy of Antigone especially appealed to him because he saw the clear opposition there between the discourse of the family and that of the state. But in my opinion things are much less clear.

对于我们，这产生新的问题，甚至黑格尔认为这个是蒙昧的问题。非常一段时间，在「精神现象学」，黑格尔尝试表达人类历史的这个问题，用辞说之间的冲突的术语。安提贡尼的的悲剧特别让他喜爱，因为他看出清楚的对立，处于家庭的辞说与国家的辞说之间。但是依我之见，事情并没有那么明朗。

As far as we are concerned, we find in the discourse of the community, of
the general good, the effects of a scientific discourse in which we see revealed
for the first time the power of the signifier as such. That question is our very
own. As far as we are concerned, the question raised is subsumed beneath
the order of thought that I am trying to present to you here.

就我们而言，我们在社会的辞说，在通俗的善的辞说，发现科学辞说的影响。在科学辞说，我们首次看见能指本身的力量被揭示出来。那个问题是我们自己的问题。就我们而言，被提出的这个问题被排列在思想的秩序之下。我在这里正尝试要跟你们呈现的。

The sudden, prodigious development of the power of the signifier, of the
discourse that emerged from the little letters of mathematics and that is distinct
from all previously existing discourses, becomes an additional alienation.
In what way? Insofar as it is a discourse that by reason of its structure
forgets nothing. That is why it is different from the discourse of primary
memorization, which carries on inside us without our knowledge, different
from the memorizing discourse of the unconscious whose center is absent,
whose place is identified through the phrase “he didn’t know,” that is precisely
the sign of that fundamental omission in which the subject is situated.
At a certain moment in time, man learned to emit and place the discourse of
mathematics in circulation, in the real as well as in the world, and that discourse
cannot function unless nothing is forgotten. It only takes a little signifying
chain to begin to function based on this principle, for things to move
forward as if they were functioning by themselves. So much so that we even
wonder if the discourse of physics, as engendered by the omnipotence of the
signifier, will reach the point of the integration of nature or its disintegration.

这个能指的力量的突飞猛进，从数学的小字母出现的辞说，不同于一切先前存在的辞说，它是一种额外的异化。以怎样的方式？因为，凭借它的结构，它是一种什么都没有忘记的辞说。那就是为什么它跟最初的记忆的辞说不同。后者在我们内部进行，而我们并不知道。它不同于我们无意识的记忆辞说，它的中心是欠缺，它的位置的被辨认，通过「他并不知道」这个词语。那确实是那个基本忽略的符号，主体被定位在那个忽略里。在时间的某个时刻，人类学会发出并且放置数学的辞说在流通当中，在实在界以及世界当中。那个辞说无法运作，除非它什么都没忘记。它仅是需要一点能指化的锁链，开始根据这个原理运作，为了让事情向前移动，好像它们本身正在运作。它运作到这个程度，以致我们甚至想要知道，物理的辞说，是否会到达自然的融合，或自然的瓦解的程度，因为它由能指的无所不能所产生。

This fact strangely complicates the problem of our desire, even if it is
doubtless no more than one of its phases. Let us just say that, as far as the
man who is talking to you is concerned, it is there that one finds the revelation
of the decisive and original character of the place where human desire is
situated in the relationship of man to the signifier. Should this relationship
be destroyed?

这个事实奇特地让我们欲望的问题复杂化，甚至无可置疑地，它仅是它的其中一个部份。让我们仅是说： 就正在跟你们谈论的这个人而言，就在那里，我们发现这个启示，这个位置具有决定性与原创性的特性的启示。在那里，人类的欲望被定位在人跟能指的关系。这个关系应该被毁灭吗？

I take it that you might have heard in the report we had on the contribution
of one of Freud’s disciples – an open-minded and cultured man, but not
exactly a genius – that it is in that direction that the question of the meaning
of the death drive lies. It is insofar as this question is tied to history that the
problem is raised. It is a question of the here and now, and not ad aetemum.
It is because the movement of desire is in the process of crossing the line of
a kind of unveiling that the advent of the Freudian notion of the death drive
is meaningful for us. The question is raised at the level of the relationship of
the human being to the signifier as such, to the extent that at the level of the
signifier every cycle of being may be called into question, including life in its
movement of loss and return.

我相信，你们很可能已经听到，在我们拥有的那篇报告，有关弗洛依德的一位学生的贡献。他是一位开明而有教养的人，但并不确实是天才。，死亡冲动的意义的这个问题，就朝著那个方向。因为这个问题跟历史息息相关，这个难题才被提出。这是此地此刻的问题，并不是「永生」的问题。因为欲望的动作正在跨越某种揭露的界限，弗洛依德的死亡冲动的观念的来临，对于我们，颇具意义。这个问题被提出，处于人类跟能指本身的关系的层次，甚至，在能指的层次，生命实存的每个循环都可能受到质疑，包括在运动中丧失与回转的生命。

And it is this that gives a no less tragic meaning to something that we
analysts are the bearers of. In its own cycle the unconscious now appears to
us as the field of a non-knowledge, even though it is locatable as such. Yet in
this field where we have to function everyday, we cannot fail to recognize the
following fact that every child could understand.

就是这个给予同样的悲剧意义，给某件我们精神分析家承载它的东西。对于我们，在它自己的循环，无意识现在出现作为一种非知识，即使它本身可找出位置。可是，在这个领域，我们必须每天发挥功能，我们一定能够体认出以下每个小孩都能了解的事实。

The desire of the man of good will is to do good, to do the right thing, and
he who comes to seek you out, does so in order to feel good, to be in agreement
with himself, to identify with or be in conformity with some norm.
Now you all know what we nevertheless find in the margin, but also perhaps
at the limit of that which occurs on the level of the dialectic and progress of
the knowledge of the unconscious. In the irreducible margin as well as at the
limit of his own good, the subject reveals himself to the never entirely resolved
mystery of the nature of his desire.

善意的人都欲望是要行善，要做正当的事情。前来寻找你的人，行善事，是为了感觉良好，要跟他自己心安理得，要认同或跟某种理想符合一致。现在，你们都知道，可是我们在边缘所发现的，或许在无意识的知识的辩证与进展的层次，所发生的事情的极限。在这个无法还原的边缘，以及在他自己的善的极限，主体显示他自己，给他的欲望的特性的无法完全解决的神秘。

The reference the subject makes to some other seems quite absurd, when
we see him continually refer to the other – and we certainly see more than a
few of these others – as if he were someone who lives harmoniously and who
in any case is happier than the analysand, doesn’t ask any questions, and
sleeps soundly in his bed. We don’t need to see this other come and lie down
on our couch, however solid and together he may be, to know that this mirage,
this reference of the dialectic of the good to a beyond that, by way of illustration,
I will call “the good that mustn’t be touched,” is the very text of our
experience.

主体提到某些其他神秘，似乎是相当荒谬的。当我们看见他继续的提到他者，我们确实看见不仅这些他者，好像他是某个和谐生活的人，他无论如何比起精神分析者更加快乐。他并不询问任何问题，他在他的床上睡得安稳深沉。我们并不需要看见这位他者来横躺在我们的谘商躺椅上，无论他多么的坚强自持，我们就会知道这种幻觉，这个善的辩证法提到的超越。作为举例说明，我将称它为「一定不要被碰触到善行」，这种超越就是我们精神分析经验的文本。

I would even add that this register of a jouissance as that which is only
accessible to the other is the only dimension in which we can locate the strange
malaise that, if I’m not mistaken, only the German language has managed to
point to – along with other psychological nuances concerning the gap in man
– with the word Lebensneid.

我甚至要补充，「欢爽」jouissance的这个铭记，作为是仅有他者能够接近的东西。它是唯一的维度，我们能够找出这个奇怪的病痛的位置。假如我没有弄错的话，仅有德文的语言成功地指出它—带有其他的心理的细微差别，关于人身上的这个差距。那就是 lebensneid （妒忌）这个字词。

Lebensneid is not an ordinary jealousy, it is the jealousy born in a subject
in his relation to an other, insofar as this other is held to enjoy a certain form
of jouissance or superabundant vitality, that the subject perceives as something
that he cannot apprehend by means of even the most elementary of
affective movements. Isn’t it strange, very odd, that a being admits to being
jealous of something in the other to the point of hatred and the need to destroy,
jealous of something that he is incapable of apprehending in any way, by any
intuitive path? The identification of this other virtually in the form of a concept
may in itself suffice to provoke the movement of malaise concerned; and
I don’t think one has to be an analyst to see such disturbing undulations
passing through subjects’ behaviors.

Lebensneid 并不是普通的妒忌。它是出生于主体身上的妒嫉，由于他跟一位他者的关系。因为这个他者被认为是享有某种形式的「欢爽」jouissance， 或是丰沛澎湃的活力。主体感受到这个活力，作为是某件他无法理解的东西，甚至凭借最基本的情感活动。这难道不是很奇特，很古怪的吗？一个生命实存承认妒嫉某件在他者的东西，甚至到达妒恨与需要毁灭它的程度。他妒嫉某件他无论如何无法理解的东西，凭借任何直觉的途径？对于这个几乎是观念形态的他者的认同，它本身就足够引起相关的病痛的运动。我不认为我们必须是一位精神分析家，我们才会看出如此令人困扰的波浪起伏，在主体的各种行为中通过。

Now we have reached the frontier. What will enable us to cross it?

现在，我们已经到达这个边界。是什么让我们能够跨越过它？

目标与途中

目标与途中

搭乘飞机旅行，通常目的地的重要性要胜过于途中，你不会花费千元或万元，仅是为了享受飞机内部的拥塞空间或窗外景色。但是骑脚踏车自助旅行，因为速度相对缓慢，途中的景色就远比目的地的响往更为重要。否则漫漫长途的耗费力气与沉闷，准教人难以为继。

最近从事翻译的经历，让我亦有类似感觉。翻译内容必须要有引人入胜的地方，始能支撑我长久继续下去。否则仅是为了些微稿酬或其他目的，而耗费冗长时刻，往往会觉得这是一件苦差事，边翻译边想放弃。

哲学家尼采在「苏鲁支语录」有更明确的比喻：「人是一条繫于野兽与超人之间的绳子，一条深渊之上的绳子。一个危险的越过，一个危险的途中，一个危险的回顾，一个危险的颤栗与停顿。人之伟大，在于他是一个桥梁，而非是目的。人之可爱，在于他是一个序曲，一个过渡。」Man is a rope between beast and superman—a rope over an abyss, a dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end. What can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.

但是他在「道德系谱学」研究苦行僧ascetic时的结论却是：「人宁可以空无为目标，不能没有目标」。Man would sooner have the void for the purpose than be void of purpose。

孰是孰非？

拉康在「精神分析四个基本观念」探讨冲动drive时，亦区分目的物object与目标aim。观看他所画的图形基模，所谓目标aim 倒像是环绕小客体的途中。文本是这样说的：「当你信任某个人一个任务时，目标aim并不是他带回来的东西，而是他必须旅行过的路线。目标就是被旅行过的途中。法文的but，可以被翻译成为英文的另外一个字目的物goal。在射弓箭时，目的物也并不是but。它并非是你射中的鸟，它曾经获得一个射中，因此获得你的but。」When you entrust someone with a mission, the aim is not what he brings back, but the itinerary he must take. The aim is the way taken. The French word but may be translated by another word in English, goal. In archery, the goal is not the but either, and thereby attained your but.

无论你是分析者，或分析家，对这个冲动的基本认识，岂可忽诸！

手机与欲望

小时候，目睹体形比人壮硕数倍的牛，在田里边被鞭打边工作，不禁感到哀悯。但是牛鼻子被穿过绳索，除了乖乖听从命令动作外，似乎也没有更好的选择。

长大后读书识字，开始思考人的欲望，跟生活处境与社会结构的关系。逐渐感受到，人虽较牛聪明百倍，但是欲望若是被社会价值操控控制，所处情境与结局，跟牛相比其实好不了多少。

从政治结构，到各行各业的各种商品的行销设计，利用广告文宣作为媒介，有些甚至是各种利益团体互相勾结，莫不是以人的欲望作为操弄，以达谋取暴利的目的。

以A商品为例，现金价本身已经是暴利，行销者仍然花言巧语诱拐你绑约使用，形同是分期付款。结果购买者付出的费用，是原现金价的倍数。

精神分析理论乍听起来，专业术语连篇。总结到底，不外乎就是分析者与分析家的欲望是什么？从事精神分析，请先从自己的欲望什么开始分析起！