Ethic 191

Ethic 191

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XV
第14章

The jouissance of transgression
逾越的欢爽

THE BARRIER TO JOUISSANCE
欢爽的阻碍

THE RESPECT OF THE IMAGE OF THE OTHER
尊敬大他者的意象

SADE, HIS FANTASM AND HIS DOCTRINE
萨德,他的幻见及他的信条

METIPSEMUS
重复

FRAGMENTED AND INDESTRUCTIBLE
碎片化与不可毁灭

I announced that I would talk about Sade.
我宣布我要谈论萨德。

It is not without some vexation that I take up the subject today because of
the break for the vacation, which will be a long one.

我今天探讨这个议题,不是没有一次懊恼。因为假期的休息将会很长。

I would like at least during this lecture to clear up the misunderstanding
that might occur because we are dealing with Sade, and it might be thought
that that constitutes a wholly external way of looking upon ourselves as pioneers
or militants embracing a radical position. Such a view implies that, as a result
of our function or profession, we are destined to embrace extremes, so to
speak, and that Sade in this respect is our progenitor or precursor, who supposedly
opened up some impasse, aberration or aporia, in that domain of
ethics we have chosen to explore this year, and that we would be well-advised
to follow him.

我至少想要在这个演讲当中,澄清可能发生的误解,因为我们正在处理萨德。大家可能认为,那会形成一个完全是外在的方式,看待我们自己,作为是前驱者,或拥抱激进立场的好战份子。这样一个观点暗示:由于我们的功用或专业的结果,我们注定要拥抱所谓的极端的立场。在这方面,萨德是我们的前辈或先锋。他被认为展开某个僵局,偏离或窘迫,在伦理学的那个领域,我们选择来从事今年的探索。我们最好遵循他。

It is very important to clear up that misunderstanding, which is related to
a number of others I am struggling against in order to make some progress
here before you.

澄清那个误解是非常重要的。它跟许多其他我正在克服的误解有关系,为了在此,在你们面前,从事某些进展。

The domain that we are exploring this year isn’t interesting for us only in
a purely external sense. I would even say that up to a certain point this field
may involve a certain degree of boredom, even for such a faithful audience
as you, and it’s not to be neglected – it has its own significance. Naturally,
since I am speaking to you, I try to interest you; that’s part of the deal. But
that mode of communication which binds us together isn’t necessarily calculated
to avoid something that the art of the teacher normally proscribes. When
I compare two audiences, if I managed to interest the one in Brussels, so
much the better, but it isn’t at all in the same way that you here are interested
in my teaching.

今年我们正在探索的这个领域,我们并不仅是从纯粹外在意义感到興趣。我甚至说,直到某个程度,这个领域可能牵涉到某个程度的无聊,即使对于像你们这样的忠实的听众。这不应该受到忽略。它拥有它自己的重要性。当然,因为我正在跟你们谈论,我尝试让你们感到興趣,那是交易的部分。但是,让我们聚集一块的沟通的那个模式,未必是经过算计要避免教学的艺术正常指定的东西。当我比较两种听众,假如我成功地让布鲁塞尔的听众感到興趣,这样更好。但是那跟你们在此对我的教学感到的興趣根本不相同。

If I adopt for a moment the point of view of what one finds in the situation,
not so much of the young analyst, as of the analyst beginning his practice –
and it’s such a humanly sensitive and valid position – I would say that it is
conceivable that what I am attempting to articulate under the title of the ethics
psychoanalysis comes up against the domain of what might be called analysis’s pastoral letter.

假如我暂时採用无们在这个情境发现的东西的观点,不是年轻精神分析家的观点,而是开始他的执业的精神分析家的观点。这是一个合乎人性的敏感而正确的立场。我不妨说,可以想象得到,我正在企图表达的东西,以精神分析伦理学的标题,遭遇到这个领域,所谓的精神分析的佈道书简的领域。

Even then I am ascribing to what I am aiming at its noble name, its eternal
name. A less flattering name would be the one invented by one of the most
unpleasant authors of our time, “intellectual comfort.” The question of “How
does one proceed?” may, in effect, lead to impatience and even disappointment,
when one is faced with the need to approach things at a level, that, it
seems, is not that of our technique on the basis of which a great many things
are to be resolved – or such at least is the promise. A great many things
perhaps, but not everything. And we shouldn’t necessarily turn our eyes away
from those things that our technique warns us constitute an impasse or even
a gap, even if all the consequences of our action are in question.

甚至因此我正在将它的高贵的名字,它的永恒的名字,归属于我正在追寻的东西。一个比较负面的名字将是我们当代一位最令人不愉快的作者所杜撰,「知识的安逸」。「我们如何进行下去」这个问题,实际上导致不耐烦,甚至失望,当我们面对这种需要,要从某个层次探索事情,这个层次似乎并不是我们的技巧的层次。以它作为基础,许多事情应该被解决。或是至少这个承诺应该被解决。或许是许多事情,但是并不每一件事情。我们不应该转开我们的眼睛,避看我们的技术警告我们的事情,它们形成一个僵局,或甚至一个差距,即使我们行动的所有结果都受到置疑。

As for this young person who is beginning his practice as an analyst, I
would call what is involved here his skeleton; it will give his action a vertebrate
solidarity, or the opposite of that movement toward a thousand forms
which is always on the point of collapsing in on itself and of becoming caught
up in a circle – something that a certain number of recent explorations give
the image of.

至于这个年轻人,他正在开始他的执业,作为精神分析家。我将称为是在此牵涉到他的支持背景的东西。它将给他的行动一种脊柱的稳定,或是朝向上千的形态的那个动作的对立。那总是本身摇摇欲坠,总是即将被套陷在圆圈里。这个东西,某些最近的探索给出它的意象。

It is, therefore, not a bad idea to expose the fact that something may degenerate
from the expectation of assurance – which is doubtless of some use in
the exercise of one’s profession – into a form of sentimental assurance. It is
as a result of this that those subjects whom I take to be at a crossroads in
their existence turn into prisoners of an infatuation that is the source of both
an inner disappointment and a secret demand.

因此,揭露这个事实,并不是一个不好的点子。某件东西可能会从确定性的期待退化下来。无可置疑的,它具有某些用途,在我们的专业的运用。它退化成为一种情感的确定性的形式。由于这个的结果,我认为是那些在他们的生存处于十字路口的那些主体,证明是某种著迷的囚犯,这种著迷既是内在失望,又是秘密的要求的来源。

And if we are to make any progress, this is what the perspective of the
ethical ends of psychoanalysis, whose significance I am trying to demonstrate
here, has to combat. It is something one encounters sooner rather than later.

假如我们想要有所进展,这是精神分析的伦理学的目标必须要克服的东西。。它的重要性,我正在尝试在此证明。这个东西,我们很快就会遭遇,而不是等到后来。

1
Our path thus far has led us to a point that I will call the paradox of jouissance.

我们的途径迄今引导我们到底我所谓的欢爽的悖论。

The paradox of jouissance introduces its problematic into that dialectic of
happiness which we analysts have perhaps rashily set out to explore. We have
grasped the paradox in more than one detail as something that emerges routinely
in our experience. But in order to lead you to it and relate it to the
thread of our discussion, I have chosen this time the path of the enigma of
its relation to the Law. And this is something that is marked by the strangeness
of the way the existence of this Law appears to us, as founded on the
Other as I have long taught you.

欢爽的悖论介绍它的难题成为快乐的辩证法,我们精神分析家或许已经轻率地探索。我们曾经理解这个悖论,用不仅是在我们的精神分析精验例行出现的某件东西的细节。但是为了引导你们到它那里,并且将它跟我们讨论的脉络联上关系,我这次选择它跟法则的关系的迷团的途径。这是某件被标示为陌生性的东西,那是这个法则的存在给我们显现的方式,依据其他的法则作为基础,那是我长久以来教导你们的。

In this we have to follow Freud; not the individual with his atheistic
profession of faith, but the Freud who was the first to acknowledge the value
and relevance of a myth that constituted for us an answer to a certain fact
that was formulated for no particular reason, but that has wide currency and
is fully articulated in the consciousness of our time – though it went unnoticed
by the finest minds and even more so by the masses – I mean the fact
we call the death of God.

在这点,我们必须遵循弗洛依德,不是拥有他的无神论专业信仰的个人,而是首先承认神话的价值与相关性的第一人。对于我们,这个神话形成对于某个事实的回答。这个事实并没有特别的理由被阐释。但是却广泛被流传,而且在我们时代的意识里,充分地被表达。虽然它受到即使是最高贵的心灵的忽视,甚至被大众忽视,我指的是我们所谓的上帝已死的这个事实。

That’s the problematic with which we begin. It is there the sign appears
that I presented to you in my graph in the form of S (O). Situated as you
know in the upper left section, it signifies the final response to the guarantee
asked of the Other concerning the meaning of that Law articulated in the
depths of the unconscious. If there is nothing more than a lack, the Other is
wanting, and the signifier is that of his death.

那就是我们开始的难题。就在那里,这个讯息出现,我用我的图形呈现给与你们,以S(0)的形式。如你们所知,它被定位在左上方,它指明这个最后的回应,对于大他者要求的保证,关于那个法则的意义,在无意识的深处,被表达的法则的意义。假如仅是一个欠缺存在,大他者是欠缺,这个能指就是大他者死亡的能指。

It is as a function of this position, which is itself dependent on the paradox
of the Law, that the paradox of jouissance emerges. This I will now try to
explain.

作为这个立场的一个功用,它的本身依靠法则的悖论,欢爽的悖论出现。我现在将尝试解释这个。

We should note that only Christianity, through the drama of the passion,
gives a full content to the naturalness of the truth we have called the death of
God. Indeed, with a naturalness beside which the approaches to it represented
by the bloody combats of the gladiators pale. Christianity, in effect,
offers a drama that literally incarnates that death of God. It is also Christianity
that associates that death with what happened to the Law; namely, that
without destroying that Law, we are told, but in substituting itself for it, in
summarizing it, and raising it up in the very movement that abolishes it –
thus offering the first weighty historical example of the German notion of
Aufhebung, i.e., the conservation of something destroyed at a different level
– the only commandment is henceforth “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.”

我们应该注意,仅有基督教,通过激情的戏剧,给予充分的内容,给我们所谓的上帝已死的真理的自然性。的确,在这种真理的自然性旁边,由斗技场斗士的流血格斗所代表的方法相形失色。实际上,基督教提供一个戏剧,实质上具体表现出上帝已死。也是基督教将上帝之死跟法则所发生的事情联想一块。换句话说,假如没有毁灭那个法则,我们被告诉,而是以自己来替换它,当我们替法则总结时,将法则提升,在废除它的动作中,因此提供最初具有份量的例子,对于德文的「勾销」的观念。在不同层次被毁灭的东西的保存。唯一的教喻因此就是「你应该爱你的邻居如你自己。」

The whole thing is articulated as such in the Gospel, and it is there that we
will continue on our way. The two notions, the death of God and the love of
one’s neighbor, are historically linked; and one cannot overlook that fact
unless one attributes to everything that occurred in history in the Judeo-
Christian tradition as constitutionally just a matter of chance.

整个的事情本身在福音书被表达,就在那里,我们将继续我们的途径。有两个观念,上帝的死亡与自己的邻居之爱,在历史上息息相关。我们不能忽略那个事实,除非我们归功于历史上犹太人发生的每件事情—基督教的传统在本质上仅是偶然发生的事情。

I am aware of the fact that the message of the believers is that there is a
resurrection in the afterlife, but that’s simply a promise. That’s the space
through which we have to make our way. It is thus appropriate if we stop in
this pass, in this narrow passage where Freud himself stops and retreats in
understandable horror. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is a commandment
that seems inhuman to him.

我知道这个事实:信仰者的讯息是,死后的生命会复活。但是那仅是一个承诺。通过那个空间,我们必须前进我们的途径。因此这是合宜的,假如我们在这个隘口停止,在这个狭窄的通道。在那里,弗洛依德自己停止而且明白地恐惧撤退:「你们应该爱你们的邻居如同你们自己」,对于他而言,这个命令似乎不合人性。

Everything he finds objectional is summed up in this phrase. As the examples
he cites confirm, it is in the name of the most legitimate ευδαιμονία on all
levels that he stops and rightly acknowledges, when he reflects on the commandment’s meaning, the extent to which the historical spectacle of a humanity
that chose it as its ideal is quite unconvincing, when that ideal is measured
against actual accomplishments.

他发现反对的每样东西,可用这个词句来总结。如同他引述的例子证实,就在最合法的ευδαιμονία ,在他停止与他适当地承认的所有的层次,当他反思命令的意义,人性的历史的景象选择它充当理想,相当难以说服人的程度。当那个理想被衡量,对抗实际的成就。

I have already referred to what it is that arouses Freud’s horror, arouses
the horror of the civilized man he essentially was. It derives from the evil in
which he doesn’t hestitate to locate man’s deepest heart.

我已经提到它召唤起弗洛依德的恐惧的本质,召唤他本质上作为文明人的恐惧。它从这个邪恶演变而来。在邪恶那里,他没有犹豫地定位人的内心最深处。

I don’t really need to emphasize the point where I bring my two threads
together to form a knot. Man’s rebellion is involved here, the rebellion of
Jederman, of everyman, insofar as he aspires to happiness. The truth that
man seeks happiness remains true. The resistance to the commandment “Thou
shalt love they neighbor as thyself” and the resistance that is exercised to
prevent his access to jouissance are one and the same thing.

我并没有真的需要强调这点, 在那里,我聚拢我的两的脉络,形成一个环结。人的反叛在此被牵涉,每个人的反叛,因为他渴望快乐。人寻求快乐的这个真理始终是真实的。对于「你应该爱你的邻居如同你自己」这个命令的抗拒,跟被运用为了阻止他接近欢爽的抗拒,是完全相同的事情。

Stated thus, this may seem an additional paradox, a gratuitous assertion.
Yet don’t you recognize there what we refer to in the most routine way each
time we see a subject retreat from his own jouissance? What are we drawing
attention to? To the unconscious aggression that jouissance contains, to the
frightening core of the destrudo, which, in spite of all our feminine affectations
and quibbles, we constantly find ourselves confronting in our analytical
experience.

从这种方式被陈述,这似乎是额外的悖论,无缘由的主张。可是,你们难道没有体认出,我们用最日常的方式提到的东西,每次我们看到一个主体从他自己的欢爽撤退? 我们正注意到什么?注意到欢爽所包括的无意识的侵凌性,注意到毁灭的可怕核心。尽管我们所有的女性的情感与争吵,我们不断地发现我们自己在精神分析经验,面临这个毁灭的可怕核心。

Whether or not this view is ratified in the name of some preconceived view
of nature, it is nevertheless true that at the heart of everything Freud taught,
one finds the following: the energy of the so-called superego derives from the
aggression that the subject turns back upon himself.

无论这个观点是否被认同,以自然的某个预先构想的观点,这仍然是真实的,在弗洛依德教导的每件事情的核心,我们找到以下:所谓的超我的精力从这个侵凌性获得,主体将这个侵凌性还击在自己身上。

Freud goes out of his way to add the supplementary notion that, once one
has entered on that path, once the process has been begun, then there is no
longer any limit; it generates ever more powerful aggression in the self. It
generates it at the limit, that is to say, insofar as the mediation of the Law is
lacking. Of the Law insofar as it comes from elsewhere, from the elsewhere,
moreover, where its guarantor is lacking, the guarantor who provides its warranty,
namely, God himself.

弗洛依德刻意出来补充这个辅助的观念,一旦我们已经进入那条途径,一旦这个过程已经开始,就不再有任何限制。它产生越来越强烈的侵凌性,在自性身上。它在限制处产生它,换句话说,法则的中介是欠缺的。因为这个法则来自别的地方,而且来自这个别的地方,在那里,法则的保证书欠缺的,提供它的保证的保证者,也就是上帝的本身。

To say that the retreat from “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is
the same thing as the barrier to jouissance, and not its opposite, is, therefore,
not an original proposition.

说出从「你应该爱你的邻居如同你自己」的这个撤退,等于是说相同的事情,跟「欢爽的阻碍」,而不是它的相反,因此,并不是一个原初的命题。

I retreat from loving my neighbor as myself because there is something on
the horizon there that is engaged in some form of intolerable cruelty. In that
sense, to love one’s neighbor may be the crudest of choices.

我从爱我的邻居如同我自己撤退,因为在地平线有某件东西,以无法忍受的残酷的形态正在进军。以那种意义,爱我们的邻居如同我们自己可能是最残酷的选择。

That, then, is the nicely whetted edge of the paradox I am asserting here.
No doubt in order to give it its full weight, one should take it step by step,
so that by understanding the way in which that intimate line of demarcation
appears, we may not so much know as feel the ups and downs to be found
on its path.

我正在从主张的这个悖论,它的边缘因此被精致地激化。无可置疑,为了给予它充分的重量,我们应该逐步地从事它。所以,凭借了解,亲密的分水岭出现,我们与其说是知道,不然说是感觉到在其途中能够找到它的起伏。

We have, of course, long learned to recognize in our analytical experience
the jouissance of trangression. But we are far from knowing what its nature
might be. In this respect our position is ambiguous. Everybody knows that
we have restored full civil rights to perversion. We have dubbed it a compo
nent drive, thereby employing the idea that it harmonizes with a totality, and
at the same time shedding suspicion on the research, which was revolutionary
at a certain moment in the nineteenth century, of Krafft-Ebing with his monumental
Psychopathia Sexualis, or also on the work of Havelock Ellis.

当然,我们长久以来学会这位们的精神分析经验体认逾越的欢爽。但是我们丝毫不知道它的特性是什么。在这一方面,我们的立场是暧昧的。众所周知,我们将完整的公民权利恢复成为变态。我们称它为成分的冲动,因此使用这个观念:它与整体性和谐,同时又对于这个革命性的研究流露怀疑。在十九世纪的某个时刻,克拉夫特、阿炳的研究,用它伟大的「精神病理的性」,或怀疑哈维拉克、阿利斯的研究。

Incidentally, I don’t want to fail to give the latter’s work the kind of thumbs
down I think it deserves. It offers amazing examples of a lack of systematicity
– not the failure of a method, but the choice of a failed method. The so-called
scientific objectivity that is exhibited in books that amount to no more than
a random collection of documents offers a living example of the combination
of a certain “foolery” with the sort of “knavery,” a fundamental knavery,
that I invoked last time as the characteristic of a certain kind of thought
known as left-wing, without excluding the possibility of its spreading its stain
to other domains. In short, if I recommend reading Havelock Ellis, it is simply
in order to show you the difference, not just in results but in tone, that
exists between such a futile mode of investigation and what Freud’s thought
and experience reintroduce into the domain – it’s simply a question of
responsibility.

偶然地,我一定想要给予后者的研究我认为它应得到不赞同。它提供一些令人惊奇欠缺系统化的例子。不是方法的失败,而是选择一种失败的方法。在书里展示的所谓的科学的客观性,相当于仅仅是任意的文集提供活生生的例子,组合某种的「愚行」跟某种的「恶棍」,一种基本的恶棍。我上次召唤,作为表现众所周知的左翼的某种思想的特征,没有排除这个可能性:它扩展它的污点到其他的领域。总之,假如我推荐阅读哈维拉克、阿利斯,那仅是为了跟你们显示这个差异,不仅用结果,而用语气,这个差异存在于徒劳的研究模式,与弗洛依的的思想与经验重新介绍到这个领域的东西之间。那仅是责任的问题。

We are familiar with the jouissance of transgression, then. But what does it
consist of? Does it go without saying that to trample sacred laws under foot,
laws that may be directly challenged by the subject’s conscience, itself excites
some form of jouissance? We no doubt constantly see the strange development
in a subject that might be described as the testing of a faceless fate or as a
risk that, once it has been survived by the subject, somehow guarantees him
of his power. Doesn’t the Law that is defied here play the role of a means, of
a path cleared that leads straight to the risk? Yet if the path is necessary,
what is the risk that is involved? What is the goal jouissance seeks if it has to
find support in transgression to reach it?

因此,我们对于逾越的欢爽耳熟能详。但是它由什么组成?它难道不是自不待言?将神圣的法则践踏在脚下,可能会被主体的良性挑战的法则,它的本身激发某种的欢爽?无可置疑,我们不断地看见奇怪的发展,在可能被描述作为是没有脸孔的命运的测试的主体,或是作为一种冒险,一旦主体经历它活下来。用某种的方式替他保证他的权利。在此被挑衅的法则难道不是扮演一个工具的角色,被清理的途径,直接导致冒险?可是,假如这个途径是必须的,牵涉到的冒险是什么?欢爽寻找到目标是什么?假如它必须在逾越中找到支持,为了到达它?

I leave these questions open for the moment so as to move on. If the subject
turns back on his tracks, what is it that guides this backtracking? On this
point, we find a more motivated response in analysis; we are told that it is
the identification with the other that arises at the extreme moment in one of
our temptations. And by extreme here I do not mean it has to do with
extraordinary temptations, but with the moment when one perceives their
consequences.

我暂时留下这些问题,没有回答,为了继续前进。假如主体回转他的轨道,是什么引导他从事回转追踪?对于这点,我们在精神分析找到一个更加具有动机的回答。我们被告知,在极端的时刻,对于大他者的认同产生,在我们的其中的一个诱惑。凭借这里的极端,我并不意味着它跟特别的诱惑有关系,而是跟我们感知它们的结果的时刻有关系。

We retreat from what? From assaulting the image of the other, because it
was the image on which we were formed as an ego. Here we find the convincing
power of altruism. Here, too, is the leveling power of a certain law of
equality – that which is formulated in the notion of the general will. The
latter is no doubt the common denominator of the respect for certain rights
– which, for a reason that escapes me, are called elementary rights – but it
can also take the form of excluding from its boundaries, and therefore from
its protection, everything that is not integrated into its various registers.

我们从什么撤退?从攻击大他者的意象撤退,因为就是根据这个意象,我们被形成作为一个自我。在此,我们发现利他主义的令人信服的力量。在此就是某个平等法则的夷平力量。它在普遍性意志的观念里被说明。后者无可置疑是对于某些权利的尊敬的共同结果。但是它也採取从它的边界排除的形式。因此,从它的保护,排除一切没有合并进入它的各种的铭记里。

And the power of expansion is also seen in what I expressed last time as
the utilitarian tendency. At this level of homogenization, the law of utility,
as that which implies its distribution over the greatest number, imposes itself
in a form that is effectively innovative. It is an enchanting power, scorn for
which is sufficiently indicated in the eyes of us analysts when we call it philanthropy,
but which also raises the questions of the natural basis of pity in
the sense implied by that morality of feeling which has always sought its
foundation there.

扩展到力量也被看见,在我上次表达作为功利主义的倾向。在同质化的这个层次,利用的法则,作为暗示它的分配,对于最大多数的人们,赋加它自己,以非常有效地革新的形式。这是一个迷人的力量,藐视这个力量,充分地指示,在我们精神分析家的眼中,当我们称它为慈善。但是它也提出这个问题:根据感觉到那个道德暗示的意义,同情的自然的基础是什么?因为感觉总是在那里寻找它的基础。

We are, in effect, at one with everything that depends on the image of the
other as our fellow man, on the similarity we have to our ego and to everything
that situates us in the imaginary register. What is the question I am
raising here, when it seems to be obvious that the very foundation of the law
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is to be found there?

实际上,我们跟每一样依靠他者作为我们同胞的意象的东西一致。依靠我们拥有的类似我们的自我,类似每一样将我们定位在想象的铭记的东西。我在此正在提出的问题是什么?当显而易见地,它似乎是法则的基础:「你应该爱你的邻居如你自然」,应该在那里被找到吗?

It is indeed the same other that is concerned here. Yet one only has to stop
for a moment to see how obvious and striking the practical contradictions are
– individual, inner contradictions as well as social ones – of the idealization
expressed relative to the respect that I formulated for the image of the other.
It implies a certain continuity and filiation of problematic effects on the religious
law, which is expressed and manifested historically by the paradoxes of
its extremes, i.e., the extremes of saintliness, and moreover by its failure on
the social level, insofar as it never manages to achieve fulfillment, reconciliation,
or the establishment on earth of what is promised by it.

这确实相同的他者在此被牵涉到。可是,我们只要暂停一刻,我们就会看出那些实际的矛盾是多么明显与引人注意。个人的内在的矛盾以及社会的矛盾,理想化的矛盾被表达,相对于我阐释的对于他者的意象的尊敬。它暗示着某些的继续与孝顺,对于宗教的法则的问题重重的影响。它在历史上被表现与显示,凭借它的极端的悖论。譬如,圣者的极端,而且凭借它在社会层次的失败。因为它从来没有成功于完成实现,协调,或是在世界上建立被它许诺的东西。

To emphasize the point even more strongly, I will refer directly to something
that seems to be opposed to this denunciation of the image, that is to
the statement which is always listened to with a kind of more-or-less amused
purr of satisfaction, “God made man in his own image.” Religious tradition
once again reveals more cunning in pointing to the truth than the approach
of psychological philosophy imagines.

为了更加强烈地强调这一点,我将直接提到某件东西,似乎是跟这个意象的抨击对立的东西,跟这个陈述对立。这个陈述总是被倾听,带着某种满意的有趣的口哨。「上帝以他的形象创造人类」。宗教的传统再一次显示更加的狡猾,指向这个真理,比起精神分析哲学想象的方法。

You can’t get away with answering that man no doubt paid God back in
kind. The statement in question is of the same inspiration, the same body,
as the holy book in which is expressed the prohibition on forging images of
God. If this prohibition has a meaning, it is that images are deceitful.
Why is that? Let’s go to what is simplest: if these are beautiful images –
and goodness only knows that religious images always correspond by definition
to reigning canons of beauty – one doesn’t notice that they are always
hollow images. Moreover, man, too, as image is interesting for the hollow
the image leaves empty – by reason of the fact that one doesn’t see in the
image, beyond the capture of the image, the emptiness of God to be discovered.
It is perhaps man’s plenitude, but it is also there that God leaves him
with emptiness.

你们无法闪躲这个回答:人类无可置疑地用同样方式回报上帝。受到质疑的这个陈述属于相同的灵感,相同的身体,作为这本圣书,上帝的铸造的意象的禁止被表达。假如这个禁止具有意义,那是因为这些意象具有欺骗性。为什么是那样呢?让我们探究即使是单纯的东西:假如有这些美丽的意象,只有天晓得,那些宗教的意象总是用定义对应美的支配信条。我们没有注意到,它们总是空洞的意象。而且,人类也是空洞的意象,因为空洞的人对意象感到興趣,意象让他们显得空洞。凭借这个事实:我们并没有在意象看见应该被发现的上帝的空洞,超越这个意象的补捉。这或许是人类的丰富性,但是也是在那里,上帝留置人类于空洞当中。

Now God’s power resides in the capacity to advance into emptiness. All of
that gives us the figures of the apparatus of a domain in which the recognition
of another reveals itself as an adventure. The meaning of the word recognition
tends toward that which it assumes in every exploration, with all the accents
of militancy and of nostalgia we can invest in it.

Sade is at this limit.

现在上帝的力量驻居在前进进入空洞的这个能力。所有这一切给予我们一个领域的工具的那些人物。在这个领域,另外一个领域的体认显示它自己,作为一种冒险。「体认」这个字词的意义倾向于在每个探索它所认为的东西,以各种强调好战与怀旧,我们能够投注在它上面。

萨德就在这个极限。

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

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: