Ethic 197

Ethic 197

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XV
第14章

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

2
Sade is at this limit, and insofar as he imagines going beyond it, he teaches
us that he cultivates its fantasm with all the morose enjoyment – I will come
back to this phrase – that is manifest in that fantasm.

萨德在这个极限。因为他想象超越它,他教导我们,他培养它的幻见,用所有的阴悒的享乐。我将回头来谈这个词句。它被展现在那个幻见上。

In imagining it, he proves the imaginary structure of the limit. But he also
goes beyond it. He doesn’t, of course, go beyond it in his fantasm, which
explains its tedious character, but in his theory, in the doctrine he advances
in words that at different moments in the work express the jouissance of
destruction, the peculiar virtue of crime, evil sought for evil’s sake, and, in
the last instance, the Supreme-Being-in-Evil – a strange reference made by
the character of Saint-Fond, who proclaims in The Story of Juliette his renewed
but not particularly new belief in this God.

当他想象它时,他证明这个极限的想象的结构。但是他也超越它。当然,他并没有在他的幻想里超越它。这解释它的沉闷的特性。但是在他的理论,在他提出的这个信条,用著作的不同时空,表达毁灭的欢爽的词语,犯罪的特殊品德,为了邪恶的缘故寻求邪恶。在最后的例子,邪恶中的崇高的生命实存—由圣芳德的人物奇怪的指称,他在「朱莉叶的故事」宣称他更新,但是并没有特别新的信仰这个上帝。

This theory is called in the same work the System of Pius VI, the Pope
who is introduced as one of the characters in the novel. Taking things even
further, Sade lays out a vision of Nature as a vast system of attraction and
repulsion of evil by evil. Under these circumstances the ethical stance consists
in realizing to the most extreme point this assimilation to absolute evil,
as a consequence of which its integration into a fundamentally wicked nature
will be realized in a kind of inverted harmony.

这个理论在相同的著作里被称为啥皮尔斯六世的系统。这位教皇被介绍,充当小说的一位人物。萨德更深入地探究事情,他安排自然的幻景,作为一种广泛的吸引与排斥系统,被邪恶吸引与排斥的系统。在这些情况之下,伦理的态度在于体会到最极端的程度,被吸收到绝对的邪恶。由于这个的结果,它的合并进入一个基本邪恶的自然,将会被实现,以一种倒错的和谐。

I am just pointing to something that appears not as stages of thought in
search of a paradoxical formulation, but much more as its wrenching apart,
its collapse, in the course of a development that created its own impasse.

我正在指出某件东西,它出现不少作为思想的阶段,寻找矛盾的阐释,而是作为跟它挣脱开,它的崩溃。在发展的过程,创造它自己的僵局。

Can’t one nevertheless say that Sade teaches us, in the order of symbolic
play, how to attempt to go beyond the limit, and how to discover the laws of
one’s neighbor’s space as such? The space in question is that which is formed
when we have to do not with this fellow self whom we so easily turn into our
reflection, and whom we necessarily implicate in the same misrecognitions
that characterize our own self, but this neighbor who is closest to us, the
neighbor whom we sometimes take in our arms, if only to make love to. I am
not speaking here of ideal love, but of the act of making love.

可是,我们难道不能说,萨德教导我们,在象征的遊戏,如何企图超越这个极限,如何发现我们的邻居的空间本身的法则?受到质疑的空间就是被形成的空间,当我们必须处理的,并不是这个人的自性,我们如此容易将他转变成为我们的反思。我们必然将他牵涉在相同的误认,表现为每自己自性的特征。而是最靠近我们的这位邻居。我们有时用手臂拥抱的邻居。只要仅是为了做爱,我在此谈论到的并不是理想之爱,而是做爱的行动。

We know well how the images of the self may frustrate our propulsion into
that space. Don’t we have something to learn about the laws of this space
from the man who enters it with his atrocious discourse, given that the imaginary
capture by the image of one’s fellow man functions as a lure there?

我们清楚知道,自我的各种意象可能会让我们的推动力量进入那个空间。我们难道没有某件东西可以学习,关于这个空间的法则,从进入它的这个人,用他的残酷的辞说,假如考虑到想象界的补捉,凭借我们的同胞的意象,在那里充当陷阱?

You can see where I am taking you. At the precise point to which I attach
our inquiry, I am not prejudging what the other is. I simply emphasize the
lures of one’s fellow man because it is from this fellow as such that the misrecognitions which define me as a self are born. And I will just stop for a
moment and refer to a little fable in which you will recognize my personal
touch.

你们能够看出我正引导你们去哪里。在这个确实的时刻,我将我的研究联系一块,我并没有对于他者是什么有所偏见。我仅是强调我们自己同胞的陷阱,因为从这个人的本身开始,定义我作为自性的这些误认诞生。我仅是将暂停一下,提及一个小寓言,在那里,你们将会认出我的个人的接触。

I once spoke to you about a mustard pot. If I draw three pots here, I simply
demonstrate that you have a whole row of mustard or jam pots. They stand
on shelves and are numerous enough to satisfy your contemplative appetites.
Note that it is insofar as the pots are identical that they are irreducible. Thus
at this level we come up against the condition of individuation. And that’s as
far as the problem usually goes, namely, that there is this one, which isn’t
that one.

我有次跟你们提到一个芥末罐。假如我在此画三个芥末罐,我仅是证明,你们拥有一整排的芥末罐或果酱罐。它们放置在架上,数量多到足够满足你的沉思的胃口。请注意,因为这些芥末罐是相同的,它们无法被还原。因此在这个层次,我们遭遇个人主义的情况。就那个难题通常而言,换句话说,是这个难题,而不是那个难题。

Naturally, the affected quality of this little trick doesn’t escape me. But do
try to understand the truth it hides, like all sophisms. I don’t know if you
have noticed that the etymology of the French word meme (self) is none other
than metipsemus, which makes this meme in moi-meme redundant. The phonetic
evolution is from metipsemus to meme – that which is most myself in
myself, that which is at the heart of myself, and beyond me, insofar as the
self stops at the level of those walls to which one can apply a label. What in
French at least serves to designate the notion of self or same (meme), then, is
this interior or emptiness, and I don’t know if it belongs to me or to nobody.

当然,我明白这个小诡计的受到影响的品质。但是请设法理解它隐藏的真理,像所有的诡辩一样。我并不知道你们是否注意到,法文meme(自性)这个词语的词源,实实在在就是metipsemus,它使moi-meme的这个meme成为多余。这个语音的进化是从metipsemus 到meme。在我自己最属于我自己的东西,属于我自己核心的东西,超越我,因为自性停止在那些墙壁的层次。我们能够应用一个标签到那些墙壁。在法文至少用来指明自性的观念,或是相同的meme,那么这个内部,或空洞,我不知道它是否属于我,或不属于任何人。

That’s what the use of my sophism signifies; it reminds me that my neighbor
possesses all the evil Freud speaks about, but it is no different from the
evil I retreat from in myself. To love him, to love him as myself, is necessarily
to move toward some cruelty. His or mine?, you will object. But haven’t I
just explained to you that nothing indicates they are distinct? It seems rather
that they are the same, on condition that those limits which oblige me to
posit myself opposite the other as my fellow man are crossed.

那是我的诡辩的用途指明的东西,它提醒我,我的邻居拥有弗洛依德谈论的所有的邪恶。但是它跟我在我自己身上撤退下来的邪恶没有什么差别。为了爱他,为了爱他如我自己,这是必要的移动朝向某种残酷。他的残酷?或是我的残酷?你们将反对地问。但是我难道不是刚刚跟你们解释,没有一样东西指示它们是不同的?相反地,它们似乎是相同,只要强迫我自己跟他者对立,作为我的同胞的那些限制被跨越。

And here I should make my approach clear. Panic drunkenness, sacred
orgy, the flagellants of the cults of Attis, the Bacchantes of the tragedy of
Euripides, in short, all that remote Dionysionism lost in a history to which
reference has been made since the nineteenth century with the expectation of
restoring, beyond Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, the vestiges still available
to us of the sphere of the great Pan, in an apologetic, utopian and apocalyptic
form that was condemned by Kierkegaard and not less effectively by
Nietzsche – that’s not what I mean when I speak of the sameness (memete) of
someone else and myself. That is by the way why I finished the seminar
before last with the evocation of the statement that is correlative to the rending
of the veil of the temple, namely, Great Pan is dead.

在此,我应该澄清我的方法。惊慌的酒醉,神圣的狂欢,阿提斯的信徒的鞭打者,尤利皮底斯的悲剧的女僧侣,总之,所有的戴奥尼修斯神丧失于历史中。自从十九世纪以来,提到她们被带著这个期望,超越黑格尔,齐克果,与尼采,我们依旧拥有这个预示:在伟大的森林之神的领域,以一种抱歉,乌托邦与启示录录的形式,那是齐克果所谴责,同样有效地被尼采谴责。那并不是我的意思,当我谈论到某个其他人跟我自己的相同。顺便说一下,那就是为什么我完成上上次的研讨班,召唤这个陈述:这个陈述跟神庙的面纱的撕开有关,换句话说,伟大的森林之神已死。

I will say no more today. It’s not just a question of my prophesying in my
turn, but I will take an appointment with you for the time when I will have
to try to justify why and from what the Great Pan died, and at the precise
moment no doubt that the legend points to.

今天我将不再多说。问题不仅是轮到我的预言,而是我将接受我跟你们的约会,因为这个时间我将必须证明伟大的森林之神为什么死亡及因为什么死亡,无可置疑地,就在传说指向的那个确实的时刻。

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: