Ethics 38

Ethics 38
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Rereading the Entwurf
第三章 重新阅读“规划”


Last time I was pleased to hear an echo, a kind of response.
Two of you who for other reasons are involved in rereading the Entwurf –
because they are working on a lexicon and perhaps for personal reasons –
came to tell me after my seminar how happy they were with the way in which
I had discussed Freud’s text; it helped justify the interest of their own rereading.


I, therefore, had no difficulty remembering – it is something of which I
am painfully aware – that this seminar is a seminar, and that it would be a
good idea if it were not simply the signifier “seminar” alone that maintained
its right to such a denomination. That is why I asked one of the two people
to come and tell us the thoughts inspired in him by the way in which I related
the subject of this seminar to the Entwurf. You will hear Jean-Bertrand Lefevre-
Pontalis, but his colleague, Jean Laplanche, and he are currently equally on
top of the Entwurf, a work that, as Valabrega noted just now, you really have
to have fresh in your memory, if you are to say anything valid about it. Is
that really true? I don’t know, for one ends up realizing that it’s not as complicated
as all that.


Mr. Lefevre-Pontalis: “There is a slight misunderstanding that I would
like to clear up. I am by no means a specialist of the Entwurf and I haven’t
reread it – I am in the process of reading it. Dr. Lacan asked me to go over
a number of points made in his seminar last week, including especially the
question of the relation to reality, that he described as particularly problematic,
if not downright paradoxical, in this early text of Freud.” (Mr. Lefevre-
Pontalis’s presentation followed.)


I would like to thank you for what you have done today. It will perhaps
enable us to introduce this year a way of dividing up the seminar that will
allow me to stop now and then, to take a rest, and at the same time have
another use.


It seems to me that you presented with remarkable elegance the vital armature
of a problem where one risks getting lost in details that are, I must say,
extraordinarily tempting. I did occasionally regret that you didn’t enter into
the detail of the position of the Bahnung, on the one hand, and the Befriedigungserlebnis,
on the other. I also regretted that you didn’t remind us of the
topology that the system ψ , φ, ω, presupposes. All that might perhaps have
illuminated things. But it is clear that one could spend a whole term, indeed
a year, simply in the attempt to rectify the distortions of certain of the Entwurf’s
original intuitions, distortions caused by the English translation.

我觉得,你们优秀高雅地讲演这个难题的重大的线圈,在那里,我们冒著迷失于细节的危险。我必须说,这些细节特别引人入胜。我有时确实感到遗憾,一方面,你们并没有进入“Bahnung, “另一方面,也没有进入Befriedigungserlebnis, 位置的细节。我也遗憾,你们并没有提醒我,ψ , φ, ω,的这个系统预先假设的拓扑位置。所有那一切或许本来可以启蒙许多事情。但是显而易见地,我们可能耗费整个学期,的确是一年,仅是企图要矫正这些曲解,对于”规划“的某些原初的直觉的曲解,由于英文翻译导致的曲解。

I notice an example of this more or less at random. Bahnung is translated
into English by “facilitation.” It is obvious that the word has an exactly opposite
meaning. Bahnung suggests the creation of a continuous way, a chain,
and I even have the feeling that it can be related to the signifying chain
insofar as Freud says that the development of the φ apparatus replaces simple
quantity by quantity plus Bahnung, that is to say its articulation. The English
translation, “facilitation,” slides over the thing.

我注意到这个相当任意性的一个例子。“Bahnung“被翻译成为英文的” facilitation“(方便性)。显而易见,这个字词拥有确实相符的一样。Bahnung暗示着连续性的创造,一个锁链,我甚至拥有这种感觉,它跟成为能指的锁链有关。因为弗洛依德说,这个φ 的工具的发展取代单纯的数量,用加上Bahnung的数量。换句话说,它的表达。英文的翻译“facilitation”(方便性)忽略这件事情。

The French translation was modeled on the English text. As a result, all
its mistakes have been multiplied, and there are even cases where its text is
absolutely unintelligible compared to a simple German text.


Nevertheless, I do believe that you emphasized the points that our following
discussions will take up, discussions that will lead us back to the relationship
between the reality principle and the pleasure principle.


You showed the
paradox involved by indicating that the pleasure principle cannot be inscribed
in a biological system. Yet, my goodness, the mystery isn’t so great if we see
that this state of affairs is supported in the following way, namely, that the
subject’s experience of satisfaction is entirely dependent on the other, on the
one whom Freud designates in a beautiful expression that you didn’t emphasize,
I am sorry to say, the Nebenmensck. I will have the opportunity to proffer
a few quotations so as to show that it is through the intermediary of the
Nebenmensck as speaking subject that everything that has to do with the thought
processes is able to take shape in the subjectivity of the subject.


I ask you to refer to the double column table that I drew for you last time.
This diagram will be of use to us until the end of our presentation and will
enable us to conceive of the pleasure function and the reality function in a
relationship that we will have to bind together more and more closely. If you
approach them in another way, you end up with the paradox that you perhaps
overemphasized today, namely, that there is no plausible reason why reality
should be heard and should end up prevailing. Experience proves it to be
overbundant for the human species, which for the time being is not in danger
°f extinction. The prospect is exactly the opposite. Pleasure in the human
economy is only ever articulated in a certain relationship to this point, which
is no doubt always left empty, enigmatic, but which presents a certain relationship
to what man takes to be reality. And it is through this that we manage
to approach ever more closely that intuition, that apperception of reality
which animates the whole development of Freud’s thought.


Freud posits that the φ system must always contain a certain level of Qή
quantity, which will play to the end an essential role. The discharge cannot,
in effect, be complete, reach a zero level, after which the psychic apparatus
achieves a final state of rest. The latter is certainly not the plausible goal or
end of the functioning of the pleasure principle. Freud wonders, therefore –
and this is something that the translation misses – how one can justify that it
is at such a level that the quantity which regulates everything is maintained.

弗洛依德假设,这个φ 系统必须总是包含某个层次的Qή 的数量。这个Qή 的数量将会以基本的角色扮演到最后。事实上,这个发泄无法是完整,到达零的层次。在这个零的层次之后,心灵的工具完成最后的休息的状态。后者确实并不是快乐原则的似乎合理的目标,或是目的。因此,弗洛依德想要知道,这是某件翻译错过的东西:我们如何能够自圆其说,在这一的层次,规范每件东西的数量维持?


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: