Lacan 409

The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the

Freudian unconscious

佛洛伊德的無意識：主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證

The Cunning of Reason

理性的狡獪

The promotion of consciousness as being essential to the subject in the historical

after-effects of the Cartesian cogito is for me the deceptive accentuation of the
transparency of the I in action at the expense of opacity of the signifier that
determines the I; and the sliding movement ( glissement) by which the Bewusstsein
serves to cover up the confusion of the Selbst eventually reveals, with all Hegel’s own
rigor, the reason for his error in The Phenomenology of Mind.

從笛卡爾的「我思故我在」在歷史上產生影響之後，意識被提昇到對於主體舉足
輕重的地位，我認為這是對於活動中的「我」透明化的欺騙性強調，犧牲意符作
為「我」的代理的矇矓性。人的覺醒藉著意符的浮動，掩蓋自我的困惑。這個意符
的浮動最後顯示，為何黑格爾儘管意氣風發，卻在「精神現象學」會犯錯的原因。

The very movement that shifts the axis of the phenomenon of mind toward the
imaginary relation to the other ( that is to say, to the counterpart connoted by the small
‘o’ the object petit a) reveals its effects; namely, the aggressivity that becomes the
beam of the balance on which will be centered the decomposition of the equilibrium
of counterpart to counterpart in the Master-Slave relationship, a relationship that is
pregnant with all the cunning tricks ( ruses) by which reason sets its impersonal reign
in motion.

精神現象學的樞紐，轉移朝向想像界跟大它者的關係的那個時刻，顯示它的影
響。換言之，小客體意涵的對應物。就是想像界跟大它者的關係所形成的自我的
理想形象。換句話說，這個理想形象侵犯原有的平衡的天枰。主子與奴隸的關係，
勢均力敵的平衡因而瓦解，就在那裡發生。主子與奴隸的關係，充斥各種狡黠的
詭計，現在被理性用來黃袍加身，冠冕君臨天下。

I can now show what is concealed in this initial enslavement—a mythical , rather than
a real genesis, no doubt—of the ‘ roads to freedom’ precisely because I have revealed

1
it as never before.

我現在能夠顯示，原先的奴役隱藏著一條神秘，但是確實並非實際的「通
往自由之路」的開端。我的這個創見，確實是開風氣之先。

The struggle that establishes this initial enslavement is rightly called a struggle of
pure prestige, and the stake, life itself, is well suited to echo that danger of the generic
prematuration of birth, which Hegel was unaware of, and which I see as the dynamic
origin of specular capture.

原先的奴役經過一場鬥爭而形成，這場鬥爭可適當地稱之為「純粹威權」的鬥爭。
所鬥爭的賭注，就是生命的本身，生命越是早產，危險越大。黑格爾不知道這個
早產的危險，我則將這個早產的危險，視為鏡中影像的捕捉的起源。

But precisely because it is drawn into the function of the stakes—a more honest wager
than Pascal’s, though it is always a question of poker, since there is a limit on how
high one can raise the bid—death shows by the same token what is elided from a prior
rule, and from the ultimate rule. For in the end, the loser must not perish if he is to
become a slave. In other words, the pact is everywhere anterior to the violence before
perpetuating it, and what I call the symbolic dominates the imaginary, which is why
one may ask oneself whether murder is the absolute Master.

但是確實是因為它被牽扯賭注的功用，這個賭注比無神論者巴斯卡賭死後無天
堂或地獄更加坦白，雖然總是要看是什麼撲克牌的問題，因為喊牌高低要先看
你拿到的牌是好是壞。同樣的，死亡顯示，先前的規則或是最後的規則，都是人
算不如天算。因為到了最後，假如賭輸者想要當奴隸，先決條件是人不能死。換
言之，
要先有約定，才會有違約的問題。我所謂的象徵符號界，支配的位階，優先於想
像界，這就是為什麼，我們會問自己，是否謀殺是絕對的主子。

For it is not enough to decide on the basis of its effect—Death. It still remains to be
decided which death, and that which is brought by life or that which brings life.

光是憑謀殺的結果是死亡來做定論，是不足以自圓其說。我們還需要決定，是肉
體的實質之死？還是象徵符號的精神之死？死亡是一種靈魂的往生？還是肉身
生命的結束？

雄伯曰：

2
這跟日本的親鸞佛教的「二度往生」說法，有點類似。親鸞認為，俗眾擺脫世俗觀
念，一心向念信仰無量壽佛的他力救度，就是靈魂的一度往生。至於以後的肉身
的實質死亡，則為二度往生。也就是在我們生前，佛陀就要救度我們的靈魂，而
不是等到死後才救度。

Without detracting from the Hegelian dialectic by an accusation of inadequacy, which

has often been laid against it on the question of what bound the society of masters
together, I simply wish at this point to stress what, on the basis of my own experience,
is self-evidently symptomatic, that is to say, as installation in repression. This is
properly the theme of the Cunning ( Ruse) practiced by reason—and the fact that it is
erroneous, as I pointed out above, in no way diminishes its attraction. The work to
which the slave is subjected and the pleasure that he renounces out of fear of death,
we are told, will be precisely the way through which he will achieve freedom. There
can be no more obvious lure than this, politically or psychologically. Jouissance
comes easily to the slave, and it will leave the work in bondage.

我指控「死亡是絕對主人」，不足以自圓其說，並無減損於黑格爾的辯證法，因
為他對於是什麼力量凝聚「主人社會」的問題，就時常被抨擊不足以自圓其說。此
刻，我僅是希望強調，根據我的精神分析經驗，那個顯而易見的病徵，換言之，
人因為受到壓抑產生的病徵。這恰恰是理性所表現的「狡獪」的主題。如我上面所
述，這種辯證不足以自圓其說，但絲毫不減損於它的吸引力。理性的狡獪主張，
奴隸被迫去從事的工作，奴隸因為畏懼死亡，而放棄的享樂，確實就是他將獲
得自由的途徑。無論從政治觀點，或從心理學觀點，這種詭辯的居心真是昭然若
揭：奴隸很容易得到「大歡喜」的安撫，因而甘心從事勞役。

The cunning of reason is attractive notion because it echoes with a personal myth that
is very familiar to the obsessional neurotic, and whose structure is often found among
the intelligentsia. But even if the obsessional avoids the bad faith of the professor, he
cannot easily deceive himself that it is his work that must make jouissance possible
for him. Paying very properly unconscious homage to the history written by Hegel, he
often finds his alibi in the death of the Master. But what about this death? He quite
simply waits for it.

理性的狡獪是一個迷人的觀念，因為它迴響一個個人的神話。那個神話，對於偏
執狂精神病患是耳熟能詳。我們在「知識份子」，也時常發現這個神話的結構。
即使偏執狂精神病患倖免教授的自以為是的信念，他無法輕易地欺騙自己，他
的作為必須要使自己有可能得到「大歡喜」。對於黑格爾寫作的精神現象的歷史，
我們不禁肅然起敬。他時常以主子的死亡，找到精神被解放的藉口。但是，這個

3
主子一但死亡，精神的解放又在哪裡？他光是等待這個大它者主子的死亡。

In fact, it is from the locus of the other where he installs himself that he follows the
game, thus rendering any risk inoperant, especially the risk of any contest, in a ‘
consciousness-of-self’ for which death is present only to jest.

事實上，黑格爾的安身立命的背景就是大它者的軌跡。他在那裡著書立說，將任
何可能的危險視若無睹，特別是任何競爭傾軋的危險。但是，在人的「自我的意
識」，死亡隱隱若現，結果成為它的最大嘲諷。

So philosophers should not make the mistake of thinking that they can take little
account of the irruption that Freud’s views on desire represented.

所以哲學家不應該犯這個錯誤，漠不關心佛洛伊德提出的石破天驚的見解：人
的行為動機受到無意識欲望的支配。

And this under the pretext that demand, together with the effects of frustration, has
submerged everything that teaches them from a practice that has declined into
educative banality that cannot be revived even by such a sell-out.

哲學家犯錯誤的藉口是，謀生的需求，外加飽受挫折的影響，淹沒一切教導他
們的理想。理想已經衰退成為教育的陳腔濫調，即使是委曲求全，都無法起死回
生。

Yes, the enigmatic traumas of the Freudian discovery are now merely repressed
desires. Psychoanalysis is nourished by the observation of children and by the
infantilism of the observations. I will not bore you with case-histories, edifying as
they all no doubt are—though they are hardly noted for their humour, their authors
being too concerned with their ‘ responsibilities’ to leave any room for the
irremediably ridiculous side to the relations that the unconscious maintains with its
linguistic roots.

沒錯，佛洛伊德所發現的這個謎團一般的創傷，現在就是欲望的被壓抑。精神分
析學賴以生存的賣點，就是兒童的心理創傷的諮商，以及這種諮商的膚淺花招
的賣弄。這些個案的歷史，恕我不一一枚舉，免得你們覺得沉悶，儘管它們無可
置疑地，也不無教化人生的作用。這些個案的歷史，通常讓人讀得乏味，因為它
們的作者太過於關心他們的「職責」，對於無意識跟語言學的根源，有息息相通
的關係，不敢輕易嘗試探討，唯恐自己落人笑柄。

4
Yet it is impossible, for those who claim that it is through the welcome accorded to
demand that incompatibility is introduced into the needs that are supposed to lie at the
origin of the subject, to ignore the fact that there is no demand that does not in some
sense pass through the defiles of the signifier.

有些人宣稱，理想與現實的衝突，是因為人對於謀生的需求趨之若鶩，而謀生
的需求就存在於人作為生命主體的起源。可是，不容忽視的事實是，任何的需求，
在某個意義上，都會經歷過意符的受到污染。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw