Logic of Phantasy 26

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 7
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 7: Wednesday, January 11, 1967

(10) ergo sum. Of course, it is an advantageous operation to leave entirely to the charge of an Other -

which is assured by nothing other than the instauration of being as being the being of the I - of an Other,

whom the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition facilitates as being the One who presented himself, as

being "I am what I am" )Je suis ce que je suis). But undoubtedly, this fideist foundation which still

remains so profoundly anchored in thinking in the 17th century, is the very one precisely, which is not for

us all that sustainable. And it is because it is subjectively struck out, that it really alienates us.

（第十）「因此，我存在」。当然，这是一个有利益的运作，完全听任一个大它者的负责。那道道地地就是建

立生命的实存，充当一个大它者的这个「我」的生命的实存。犹太教及基督教的传统的上帝，权充呈现自己

作为这个「唯我独尊」，作为「我就是我自己」。但是无可置疑的，这个信仰的基础依旧根深砥固於十七十纪，

对於我们现代人来说，並不是那样的天经地义。因为它主观上是功败垂成，我们真的感到疏离，

This I already illustrated with this liberty or death. A marvelous notification no doubt. Who, in this

notification, would not in effect refuse this Other par excellence which is death? As a result of which, as I

pointed out to you, there remains to him the liberty to die.

我曾经用「不自由，母宁死」的选择作为例子。无可置疑，那个通告是驚天动地。在这个通告中，事实上有谁

不拒绝这个最崇高的大它者，也就是死亡。如我指明的，其结果是，他始终拥有的就是选择死亡的自由。

It is the same for what already the Stoics formulated in the et non propter vitam vivendi perdere

causas(but in order not to lose it, are you going to lose life?) for things not to be read here already rather

clearly. But for us, what is at stake is to know what is going to be involved between this either I am not

1
thinking or I am not, I mean: I as am not.

这跟斯多亚禁欲学派在所揭橥的「为了拯救生命，而毁灭生命」大同小異，（但是为了不要失去生命，你愿

意失去生命吗？）只是望文生义，反而会引起误解。但是，就我们而言，岌岌可危的是，要去知道，在这

个「要不就是我没有正在思想，要不就是我没有实存」，我的意思是「作为没有实存的我」，两者之间，会牵

涉到什麽？

What is going to be the result? The result in which we do not have a choice! We do not have a choice -

from the moment this I was chosen as instauration of being - we do not have a choice. It is towards the I

am not thinking that we must go. For this instauration of the I as the pure and unique foundation of being

is very precisely what henceforth puts a term - a term, I mean a final full stop - to all questioning of

noein, to any approach which would make of thinking anything other, than what Freud, with his time and

with science, made of it. Das Denken, he wrote in the formulations on the double principle of the psychic

event, is nothing other than a formula, a trial formula that is trying to open things up in a way. This is

always to be done with the least psychic investment and allows us to question, to measure, to trace,

moreover, the path along which we have to find satisfaction for what presses us and stimulates us, by

some motor procedure to be traced in the real.

那结果将是什麽？结果是：我们没有一个选择的空间！我们没有一个选择的空间，从「我」被选择作为生命

实存的建立的时刻，我们就没有选择的空间。我们必须朝着这个「我没有正在思想」，勇往直前。这个「我」的

建立，作为生命实存的唯我独尊的基础，因此被给予一个期限，我的意思是有终止的一天，对於「无常」的

置疑，任何组成思想的方法，会有终止的一天，即使是佛洛伊德盡其畢生之力及科学之能来诠释。
「陌生之

感」，他在论心理事件的双重原则的说明时，如此写着，陌生之感就是这个公式，一个试验的公式，设法

以某种方式显明真相。我们总是应该带着客观的心理从事这项试验，让我们可以置疑，衡量，追踪这条途

径。沿着这条途径，我们必须找到满足，因为有某种的动力程序驱策我们，压迫我们，要在真实界找到满

足。

This essential I am not thinking, is where we have to question ourselves about what results from it,

concerning the resultant loss of choice. The I am not, of course, in itself, as we have earlier grounded it,

namely, as the essence of the I itself. Can the loss of alienation be resumed in this? Certainly not.

Precisely, something appears, which has the form of negation, but of negation that is not directed

towards being, but towards the I itself qua grounded in this am not.

这个基本的「我没有正在思想」，就是我们必须要置疑自己的地方，关於它的结果，关於我们没有选择余地

的结果。当然，「我没有实存」本身，我们早先给它奠定的基础是，「我」的本身的本质。疏离的失落能够从这

里重新开始吗？当然不能够。确实地，某件具有拒绝的东西出现，但是这个拒绝不是朝向生命的实存，而

是朝向奠基在「没有实存」的位置的这个「我」本身。

2
Connected with the choice of the I am not thinking something arises whose essence is not to be not I

(pas-je), at the very place of the ergo, in so far as it is to be put at the (11) intersection between the "I

think" and "I am", in what, alone, is supported as a being of cogitation. This ergo then, at this very place

something appears, which sustains itself by not being not-I.

跟「我没有正在思想」的选择相关的，是某件东西的出现。它的本质，不是处於「因此」那个位置的那个「非

我」，因为它被放置在「我思」与「我在」之间的交会处，由深思熟虑的生命的实存，作为支持。这个「因此」，

就处在某件东西出现的地方，靠着不成为那个「非我」，来支撑自己。

This not-I, so essential to articulate for being thus in its essence, is what Freud brings us in the second

step of his thinking called the "second topography", as being the Id (ca).

这个「非我」，本质上作为生命的实存的表达是如此的重要，所以佛洛伊德在他思想的第二步，称之为「第

二平台」，当着是「本我」。

But it is precisely here that there is the greatest danger of error and that moreover -by approaching it

myself in the measure that I was able to do it, when I spoke about the Wo Es war - I was not able, for

lack of the logical articulation which allows it to take on its veritable value, to really make it felt where

there lies the essence of this not-I constituted by the Id and which renders so ridiculous the way in which

there seems to infallibly fall any subject who remains on psychological paths. Namely, in so far as they

inherit the tradition of ancient philosophy, that of the soul, or of the psyche, they make something that is.

The Id, for them, will always be what a particular imbecile trumpeted in my ear for the ten years we were

neighbours, that "the Id is a bad ego".

犯错误的最大危险，确实就是在这里。当我谈到「它之所在，我将归焉」，儘管我缺乏逻辑表达的工具，使

它的价值被验证出来，我自己能够接近它，我能够使它被感觉到，这个「非我」的本质，由「本我所组成」，

只是我们若始终保持在心理学的途径，它将显得是荒谬可笑。换句话说，他们继承古代哲学的传统，灵魂

的传统，或心灵的传统，他们将它视为具体的东西。这个「本我」，对於他们而言，在我们相处的十几年间，

他们在我耳边，侃侃而谈，好似那是个特别的白痴，「本我是一个不好的自我」。

Nothing of this kind can be formulated in any way whatsoever! And, to conceive of it, it is extremely

important to notice that, this Id, in this strange anomalous positiveness that it takes on by being the not

of this I which by essence am not. One must know what this can mean, what strange complement may

be at stake in this not-I.

我们现在根本不用这样的方式来说明！要构想它，极端重要的是注意到，这个「本我」，极其怪異地蓬勃異

常，由於本质上是「没有存在」，它充当这个「我」的「否定」。我们必须知道，这会是什麽意思。在这个「非我」
，

岌岌可危的，是怎样怪異的互补！

3
Well then, one has to know how to articulate it and to say it, as the whole delineation of what is involved

in the Id effectively articulates it for us.

我们必须要知道如何表达它，说出它，当着是这个「本我」，对於我们，有效表达所牵涉到的整个描述。

The Id at stake is undoubtedly not, of course, in any way, the "first person", since it was a veritable error

- to be rejected to the rank of the grotesque, it has to be said, whatever may be the respect we bear, in

the name of history, to its author - to have been lead to put forward, that the psychology of Freud was a

psychology in the first person. And that one of my pupils - in the course of this little report which forms

part of the pamphlet that I distributed to you the last time - that one of my pupils thought himself obliged

to take that path again, holding for a moment to the illusion that it was even a path along which I am

supposed to have lead you to formulate it (and naturally it is necessarily so, after having heard me

formulating the contrary, is that not so!), is in itself as a sort of bluff and swindle, because this has

nothing to do with the question.

岌岌可危的「本我」，无可置疑的，当然並不是这个「第一个人」，因为那是一个可验证的错误，被人拒绝当

着是怪诞的地位。我们必须说，以历史的名义，无论我们对於它的作者多麽的尊敬，我们不得不提出，佛

洛伊德是心理学的第一个人。我有一位学生，在我散发给你们的这本册子里，有一篇小报告，我的一位学

生认为他自己不得不再一次走那条途径，曾有一阵子，抱持这样的幻觉，那是我应该引导你们前去描述的

途径，（他若是听到我相反的论调，当然就不会再这样说了！）它本身就是虚张声势及欺诈，因为彼此之

间，风马牛不相及。

The Id is neither the first, nor the second person, nor even the third, in so far as, to follow the definition

that Benveniste gives of it, the third is supposed to be who one talks about.

这个「本我」，既不是第一个人，也不是第二个人，甚至不是第三个人。若是依照边凡尼斯特所给的定义，

第三个人应该被认为是我们谈论的那个人。

The Id (ca) is, something we approach a little bit more in statements like "ca brille" or "ca pleut" or "ca

bouge" (it's shining, it's raining, it's moving). But it is again to fall into an error to believe that it is that. It

is supposed to be that in so far as it makes (12) a statement of itself! This is something that still does not

highlight enough what is at stake.

这个「本我」是某件我们接近的东西，类似这样的陈述：（它正在闪亮，它正在下雨，它正在移动）。但是，

这将再一次陷入错误，假如我们相信，那就是那样。它应该是使它自己本身成为一个陈述。这就是某件岌岌

可危的东西，尚未受到足够强调。

4
The Id is properly speaking what, in discourse, qua logical structure, is very exactly everything that is

not I, namely all the rest of the structure. And when I say "logical structure" you should understand it as

grammatical.

适当地说，这个「本我」，在真理的论述中，作为逻辑的结构，确实是「非我」的一切。换句话说，是结构的

其余部分。

It is not for nothing, that the very support of what is involved in the drive, namely, phantasy, should be

able to be expressed as follows: Ein Kind ist geschlagen, a child is being beaten.

这並非没有意义，我们将欲望驱力所牵涉到的支持，也就是幻见，应该被表达如下：一位小孩正在被打。

No commentary, no metalanguage will account for what is introduced into the world in such a formula!

Nothing can either re-duplicate it or explain it! The structure of the sentence a child is being beaten is

not there to be commented on, simply: it shows itself. There is no physis that can account for the fact

that a child ... should be beaten. There may be, in the physis something which requires that he should

knock himself, but that he should be beaten is something different! And, that this phantasy should by

something so essential in the functioning of the drive, is something that simply only reminds us of what I

demonstrated about the drive before you (in connection with the scoptophilic drive and in connection

with the sado-masochistic drive). That it is traced out, that it is a montage - a tracing, a grammatical

montage whose inversions, reversals, complexities, are not ordered otherwise than by the application of

diverse reversals (Verlehrung), of partial and chosen negations. That there is no other way of making

the relation of the I, qua being-to-the-world function except by passing through this grammatical

structure, which is nothing other than the essence of the Id.

没有一个评注，没有一个形上语言能够解释，这样一个公式，给这个世界介绍什麽。没有一样东西能够复

制它，或解释它！「一个小孩正在被打」，这个句子的结构，存在那里不是要被评注，简单地说，它只是

表现它自己。没有一种「自然界」，能够解释「一个小孩、、、应该被打」这个事实。在「自然界」，可能会有某件

东西，要求他应该敲打他自己，但是不是「他应该被打」，这是两码子事！这个幻见在欲望驱力的功用，是

如此的重要，只是提醒我们，我在你们面前，证明的欲望驱力（跟窥视色情的欲望驱力有关，也跟虐待及

受虐的欲望驱力有关）。它被追踪出来，它是一个蒙太奇画面，一种追踪，一种文法的蒙太奇画面。它的倒

转，逆转，综合所使用的秩序，道道地地就是部分否定及选择性否定的多样性倒转。没有其它方法来制造

这个「我」，作为「实存於世界」的关系，除了通过这个文法的结构。这个结构道道地地就是本我的本质。

Naturally, I am not going, today, to go through this lecture with you again. I have enough of a field to

cover for it to be necessary for me to be content with marking what is the essence of the Id, in so far as

it is not-I. It is all the rest of the grammatical structure. And it is not by chance that Freud remarks, in the

analysis of Ein Kind ist geschlagen, in the analysis of "a child is being beaten", that never does the

5
subject, the Ich, the I – which nevertheless ought to take a place there, for us in the reconstruction of

what we are making of it, in the Bedeutung that we are going to give it, which is necessary in the

interpretation, namely, that at one moment, he is the one who is beaten - but in the statement of the

phantasy, Freud tells us, this moment, and for good reason!, is never avowed. Because the I, as such, is

precisely excluded from the phantasy.

当然，我不是要在今天就将这个议题讲完。我还有足够的领域要讲述到，这样对於「本我」的本质，我才会

觉得是畅欲所言，因为「本我」即是「非我」。它是所有其余的文法结构所在。佛洛伊德在「一位小孩被打」的分

析中刻意地说到，人作为一个生命的主体，这个「我」，应该有一席之地，让我们重建我们的解释，在我们

将给予它的「意义」当中。意义会有解释的必要，换句话说，他是一位被打的人。但是在幻见的陈述中，佛洛

伊德告诉我们，在这个时刻，振振有词地。这句话从来没有被公开承认，因为这个「我」，确实从这个幻见

里被排除掉。

We can only account for this, by marking the dividing line between two complementaries: the i of is

beaten – this pure being that it is, as a refusal of being - with what remains as articulation of thinking

and which is the grammatical structure of this sentence. This, of course, only takes on its import and its

interest by being linked to the other element of the alternative, namely, what is going to be lost in it.

我们只能标示两个当代人之间的这个分界线，来解释这一点：「正在被打」的这个「我」，作为纯粹的生命的

实存，是一种对於生命实存的拒绝，使用仅剩余的思想的表达，及这个句子的文法结构。当然，这样只能

形成它的意义跟它的興趣，因为它要跟其它的选择的因素相连，换句话说，它将会迷失其中。

雄伯译

springherohsiung@gmail.com