Logic of Phantasy 51

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 13
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

I read last evening, somewhere, perhaps some of you too may have encountered it, this singular title:

"Know Freud before translating him" ... an enormity! As was said by a gentleman whom I do not claim to

resemble because I do not go around like him with a stick, even though sometimes with a hat:

"henaurme"!

我昨天晚上阅读，在某个地方，或许你们有些人也可能曾经阅读过，这篇奇特的文章：「了解佛洛伊德於

未翻译他之前」。
「真是令人歎为观止！」一位性格跟我截然不同的绅士说。我不像他那样，带着手杖趴趴走，

有时见到人，举起帽子招呼一声：「你好！」

In any case, it is clear that it seems to me that to try to translate him, is a path that is certainly

indispensable as a preliminary to any pretension of knowing him.

无论如何，显而易见，我觉得，设法翻译佛洛伊德是一条途径，确实是不可或缺，作为伪装了解他的第一

步。

That a psychoanalyst should claim to know psychoanalysis may be acceptable, but to know Freud

before

translating him, invincibly suggests this stupidity of knowing him before having read him. This, of course,

supposes all the necessary enlarging of the notion of translation. For undoubtedly, what is striking, is

that I do not know if we can ever pot forward something, which resembles this pretension of knowing

Freud. Measure clearly for yourselves what it means - in the perspective that the thinking of Freud, once

it has reached the end of its development, offers us - measure clearly for yourselves what it means to

1
have proposed to us the model of subjective satisfaction in sexual union.

一位精神分析师应该宣称他了解精神分析学，这一点大家可以接受。但是宣称在翻译他之前，就了解佛洛

伊德，这不啻意味着，阅读他之前，就了解他，是愚不可及。当然，这是假设翻译的观念是作廣义的解释。

无可置疑的，耐人寻味的是，我不知道是否我们能够称之为，这是类似伪装了解佛洛伊德。你们自己去衡

量那是什麽意思。从佛洛伊德的思想提供给我们的观点而言，当它己经到达成熟的阶段，你们可以清楚地

衡量，在性的结合中，生命的主体获得满足，这样的建议是什麽意思？

Was not the experience - the experience from which Freud himself started - very precisely that it was

the locus of subjective dissatisfaction? And has the situation improved for us?

精神分析的经验，从佛洛伊德本人开始，难道不确实就是，它是生命主体的不满足的轨迹？对於我们，这

种情况已经改善了吗？

Frankly, in the social context which is dominated by the function of the employment of the individual - the

employment, whether it is regulated against the measure of his subsistence purely and simply, or that of

productivity - what margin in this context, is there left to what might be the proper time for a culture of

love?

坦白地说，社会的情境受到个人的操控的功用所支配。这种操控，无论是纯粹出之於生存的需求的规范，

或是出之於在社会的背景中，創造的需要，它都必须听從爱的文化，作为动机。

And does not everything testify to us that this is indeed the reality most excluded from our subjective

community?

这一切难道不都在对我们证明，这个以爱作为真实界，恰恰是從我们生命主体的社会，被排除不见？

No doubt this is, not what decided Freud to articulate this function of satisfaction as a (2) truth but, that

seemed to him to be protected from this risk, that he avowed to Jung, of seeing a profound theory of the

psyche finding itself in the rut of what he himself called "the black tide of mud of occultism".

无可置疑，这使得佛洛伊德决定不以满足的表达，作为一项真理。对於他而言，他似乎也未能免除这种的

危机，当他看到心理学发展的一项深奥的理论，他自己一时激动，称之为「神秘主义的泥濘黑潮」，他

亲口对荣格承认他的危机。

It is indeed because with sexuality - which, precisely, throughout the centuries, had presided over what

seems to us the follies, the delusions of Gnosis, of the copulation of the wise man and sophia (and

along what path!) - it is indeed because in our century and under the reign of the subject, there was no

2
risk that sexuality could presume to be some kind of model for knowledge, that, no doubt, he began this

tune of the leader of the game, so well illustrated by this tale of Grimm that he loved, of the Pied Piper,

drawing behind him this audience which, one can well say, as regards the paths of any kind of wisdom,

represented the dregs of humanity.

这确实是因为，自古以来，我们的愚昧行径，莫不与性扯上关系，例如，诺斯教徒对於爱神的幻觉，智者

索罗门王跟索菲亚的迷恋。的确，在目前这个世纪，在生命的主体的统治之下，性的知识能够假定不会再

有这样的危机。无可置疑地，人能够开始吹起笛声， 充当性遊戏的主导者。如同他所喜爱的格林童话的故

事，吹笛人引诱儿童般，后面跟随一大票听众。这些听众，对於任何种类的智慧的途径，代表的是人类的

渣滓，我们不妨这样说。

For undoubtedly, in what I called earlier the line that he traces out for us, and where one must start from

the end, namely, the formula of repetition, it is necessary to measure what separates the panta rhei of

the ancient thinker, when he tells us that nothing ever repasses in its own trace - that one never bathes

in the same river - and what that signifies in terms of a profound tearing apart of a thinking, that can only

grasp time in this something which only goes towards the indeterminate, at the price of a constant

rupture with absence.

无可置疑的，我早先提到的这条途径，他为我们追踪出来。我们必须从这条途径的末端开始，也就是说，

从重复的公式开始。我们必须探讨，是什麽区别古代思想家的这个「变易哲学」，当他告诉我们，「河水流动，

你二次涉入的水，已非前水」，有何不同於另一个思想内部的分裂，导致我们所能理解的，只能朝向朦胧

不定的部分，代价是必须跟思想本身一刀两断。

What is added to it by introducing here the function of repetition?

介绍这种重复的功用，我们能为它增添什麽？

Well then, undoubtedly, nothing much more satisfying, than to always, incessantly, renew, a certain

number of circuits.

无可置疑的，除了在某些迴圈内，不断地更新，没有其它事情，能令人更心满意足。

The pleasure principle, undoubtedly, does not guide towards anything, and least of all towards the re-

grasping of some object or other.

无可置疑的，「快乐原则」並没有引导我们朝向哪里，尤其没有朝向某个客体的重新掌握。

What can the pure and simple notion of discharge account for, in so far as it is supposed to take its

model from the established circuit of the sensorium, from something, moreover, rather vaguely defined

3
as being the motor, the stimulus-response circuit, as they say? Who does not see that by keeping to this

the sensorium can only be the guide of what ensures, in effect, at the simplest level, that when the frog's

leg is stimulated, it is pulled back. It does not lead to grasping anything in the world, but to fleeting what

injures it.

发泄的这个单纯的观念所能解释的，它所形成的模式，应该从「感官神经」的既有迴圈，从某件相当模糊定

义的「动力」，这个「刺激及反应」的迴圈，不是吗？有谁会看不出来，坚守这个「感官神经」，只能引导，事

实上，只能在简单的层次获得证实，例如，青蛙的脚受到刺激，它会反缩回去。它没有引导我们对於世界

的理解，而是导致我们对於世界所受的伤害，视若无睹。

What is it that the constant defined in the nervous system guarantees by the pleasure principle? The

equality of stimulation, isostime, I would say - to imitate the isobar or the isotherm that I spoke about the

other day – or isorespe, isoresponse. It is difficult to ground anything whatsoever on the isostime, for the

isostime is no longer in any way a stime. The isorespe, the "groping" for the equality of resistance, here

is what can define this isobar that the pleasure principle will lead the organism to avoid in the world.

Nothing in all of that, in any case, pushes towards the seeking, to the grasping, (3) to the constitution of

an object.

在神经系统里，所定义的这个常数，「快乐原则」，它能保证什麽？刺激的同等对待，我时常说，是模仿我

前天谈到的「等压线」，「等温线」，或「同等刺激」，「同等反应」。我们很难将任何东西的基础，建立在这个

「刺激的同等对待」上。因为这个刺激的同等对待，会产生反应遞减的效应。这个「同等刺激」作为同等抗拒的

「测试」，定义这个等压线，这是快乐原则引导有机体，要在这个世界中避免的。无论如何，这一切当中，

没有一样东西能够驱使我们，朝向一个客体的寻求，理解，跟建立。

The problem of the object as such is left intact by this whole organic conception of a homeostatic

system. It is very surprising that its flaw has not been marked up to now.

整个有机体的「体内平衡系统」的概念，对於这个客体的问题，避而不谈。耐人寻味的是，它的这个瑕疵，

迄今始终都没有被注意到。

Freud, here, undoubtedly, has the merit of noting that the seeking of an object is something which is

conceivable only by introducing the dimension of satisfaction.

无可置疑的，佛洛伊德的贡献是注意到，只有先介绍满足的向度，我们才能构想一个客体的寻求。

Here we again come up against the strangeness of the fact that while they are so many organic models

of satisfaction - beginning with digestive repletion and also some of the other needs that he evokes, but

in a different register - for it is remarkable that it is precisely in so far as these schemas in which

4
satisfaction is defined as untransformed by the subjective agency, (oral satisfaction is something that

can put the subject to sleep, at the limit, but undoubtedly it is conceivable that this sleep may be the

subjective sign of satisfaction) - how infinitely more problematic it is to highlight that the true order of

subjective satisfaction is to be sought in the sexual act, which is precisely the point in which it proves to

be the most torn apart.

在此，我们再一次碰触到，对于这个事实，我们非常陌生：虽然有机体的满足模式有许多，从消化器官的

飽满，还有因此而带动的不同层次的需求的满足。耐人寻味的是，在这些满足模式当中，有些满足被定义

为「主体的代理者，不得改变它」，（口腔的满足，酣畅之余，可以使主体恬然入眠，但是无可置疑的，先

决条件是，主体已经有满足的迹象）。生命主体满足的真正层次，应该在性的行动中寻找，这种强调能否

成立，那更是问题叢生。对於这一点，各家理论确实是分歧纷纭。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com