Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

28.3.62 XV 185

What else is still necessary to convince you of the structural
dependency of this constitution of the object (object of desire)
on the initial dialectic of the signifier, in so far as it runs
aground on the non-response of the Other, if not the path we have
already taken of Sadian research which I showed you at length –
and if it is lost, you should know at least that I have committed
myself to going back on it in a preface that I promised for an
edition of Sade – we cannot overlook with what I am calling here
the structuring affinity of this journey towards the Other in so
far as it determines any setting up of the object of desire; that
we see in Sade at every moment mingled, woven together with one
another, invective – I mean invective against the Supreme Being,
his negation being only a form of invective even if it is the
most authentic negation – absolutely interwoven with what I would
call, in order to approach it, to tackle it a little, not so much
the destruction of the object as what we could take first of all
for its simulacrum because you know the exceptional resistances
of the victims of the Sadian myth to all the trials which the
romantic text puts them through.


And then what, what is meant by
this sort of transference onto the mother incarnated in nature of
(17) a certain and fundamental abomination of all her acts?


Should this dissimulate from us what is involved and what we are
told nevertheless is involved in imitating her in his acts of
destruction and by pushing them to the final term by a will
applied to forcing her to recreate something else, which means
what? Giving his place back to the creator.


When all is said and done in the final analysis, Sade said it
without knowing it, he articulates this by his enunciating: I am
giving you your abominable reality, you the father, by
substituting myself for you in this violent action against the
mother. Of course, the mythical returning of the object to
nothing is not simply aimed at the privileged victim, who is when
all is said and done adored as object of desire, but the very
million-fold multitude of everything that there is. Remember the
anti-social plots of Sade’s heros. This returning of the object
to nothing essentially simulates the annihilation of signifying

追根究底,当一切都说都做了,萨德说出对母亲的这个移情,虽然他自己并不知道。他凭据他的表述,表达对母亲的这个移情: 我正在给予你,你令人厌恶的现实。你,作为父亲,凭借将我自己跟你替换,用这个暴力的行动,对抗母亲。当然,这个客体神秘地回转到空无,目标不仅是针对这个特权的受害者,当一切都说都做了,他被崇拜作为欲望的客体。目标也是针对具有生命实存的百万倍的众生,请你们记住,萨德的英雄具有反抗社会的情节。这个客体的回转到空无,基本上模拟能指化的力量的毁灭。

This is the other contradictory term of this fundamental
relationship to the Other as it is established in Sadian desire,
and it is sufficiently indicated in the final testamentary wish
of Sade in so far as it is aimed precisely at this term which I
specified for you of the second death, the death of being itself
in so far as Sade in his will specifies that of his tomb and
intentionally of his memory despite the fact that he is a writer
there should literally remain no trace and a thicket ought to be
regrown over the place where he is inhumed, that of him
essentially as subject it is the no traces which indicates where
he wants to affirm himself: very precisely as what I called the
annihilation of the signifying power.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: