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?

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: