Logic of Phantasy 37

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 9
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 9: Wednesday, January 25, 1967

A curious thing. Among the twenty five year olds, I had to this utterance - as far as I know, of course, but

there are some of them who come to confide in me in the following week - nothing but particularly

bracing reactions, I would say. However austere the formula may be, it appeared invigorating to many.

多麽耐人寻味的事情！我的这个表达，据我所知，在二十五岁的年轻人当中，普遍流传。但是，第二个星

期，有些人前来跟我坦诚以告，仅仅是攀交结识，我不妨这样说。无论这个公式多麽刻薄，很多人还振奮

不已。

What is it, then, that possibly conditions the unease of an analyst ... if not very precisely what I marked

here on this formula, with this little swerve (crochet) which displaces the nothing by a faction: You are

only this nothing that I am (Tu n'es que ce rien que je suis). This is no less true, in effect, than the

preceding formula, in so far as it refers us to the key function, to be attributed - in the status of this I of

the "I am" - to this small o. Which constitutes, in effect the whole question about it (and it is on this that I

want to delay a little more today) and one can understand, in effect, that it interests the analyst.

那麽，是什麽引起了一位精神分析师的惴惴不安？难道不就是我在这里用这个公式所标示，用这个小小的

转弯，以一场内讧代替这个「一文不值」：「你只是我存在的这个一文不值」。事实上，这个公式，比起前面

那个公式，同样是真实，因为它跟我们提到这个关键性的功用。这个功用，应该被归属於这个小客体，处

於「我存在」的这个「我」的地位。事实上，这样就构成有关它的整个问题（今天为了讲述这一点，我将延长

时间），事实上，你们了解到，精神分析师对它会感到興趣。

For, in the operation of analysis - in so far as it alone allows us to go far enough in this relation of

thinking to being at the level of the I, for it to be what introduces the function of castration - the small o,

1
in this operation, has to be completed with a signifying tauil. In the path that analysis traces out, the

small o is the analyst.

在精神分析的运作，只有精神分析使我们能够深刻探讨，思想跟生命实存的关系，在这个「我」的层次，

这样它才有办法介绍阉割的功用。这个小客体，在精神分析的运作里，必须被完成，用一个意符的标签。

在精神分追寻的这条途径，小客体就是精神分析师。

And it is because the analyst has to occupy this position of small o, that in effect, for him, the formula -

and very legitimately - gives rise to an appropriate anxiety, if one remembers what I formulated about

anxiety: that it is not without an object. And this indicates that it is all the more founded that the one who

is called by the signifying operation that is analysis, finds himself, at that very place, stimulated to

interest himself, at the very least, in this object.

因为精神分析师必须占据小客体的这个位置。事实上，对于他而言，这个公式产生一个适当的焦虑，而且

是理所当然的焦虑，假如你们记得我对於焦虑的诠释：焦虑它一但不成为一个客体。这指示着，被精神分

析的意符的运作，所称为的这个小客体，会发现他自己的基础，更加被建立在这个位置上。这样，他会被

激发对这个客体更加的恋栈。

To know how he assumes it is something still rather distant from the consideration of it that we can

contribute here. But how can one fail to recognise that there is nothing here which ought to upset us any

more than what for a long time had been formulated - along the paths of an aphoristic short-circuit of a

wisdom that has certainly been lost but is not completely without an echo - in the form of Tat twam asi:

recognise yourself, you are that.

知道精神分析师如何看待这件事，目前尚且不是我们在这里所能贡献的考虑。但是我们怎麽可能没有体认

出来？在此，我们应当心如止水，不受干扰，正如千古以来，在真理的追寻途中，不乏智慧隽语敦敦教诲。

这个智慧隽语确实曾经失落，但是遗音依就袅袅，犹如梵语所言：认识你自己，你就是那样。

Which, of course, could only remain opaque because of a (9) identified to the correlate of representation

in which, in this tradition, the subject is more and more instaured, there is nothing more empty than this

formula. That I am my representation, is only here this something which it is too easy to say corrupts the

whole modern development of a thinking under the name of idealism - and the status of representation,

as such, has to be taken up again by us.

当然，这个问题只能保持模糊不清，因为跟符号再现的关系，一个小客体被辨认出，在这个传统，主体越

来越能重建自己，这个公式就变得再空洞不过。我就是我的符号再现，这个某件轻易说出的东西，以理想

主义的名义，腐坏了整个现代思想的发展，符号再现的地位的本身，必须被我们重新探讨。

2
Assuredly, if these words have a sense called structuralism ... (I do not want to give any others, - like:

the

Nouvelle Critique), they ought of course to begin by articulating something about representation.

Is it not quite clear, by simply opening a volume like the last of the Mythologiques that has appeared, by

Claude Levi-Strauss, that if the analysis of myths, as it is presented to us, has a sense, it is because it

de-centres completely the function of representation. Assuredly we are dealing with dead matter, with

respect to which we no longer have any I-relation.

的确，假如这些话有所谓的结构主义的意义（我就以诺维利批评理论当例子），当然，它们应该以表达有

关符号再现的问题开始。这难道不是显而易见的吗？我们只要打开像列文、史特劳斯的「神话学」的最后一

册。假如我们所观看到的神话的分析，有一个意义，那是因为它完全废除掉符号的功用的中心。的确，我

们所正在处理的是僵死的东西，关於它们，我们不再有任何「我」的关系存在。

And this analysis is a game, a fascinating game, because of what it reminds us of, and you can find the

testimony of it - to take only this last volume - from the first pages on. It is called From honey to ashes,

and we see there being articulated in a certain number of myths the relations between honey –

conceived of as a nourishing substance prepared by others than men, and, in a way, before the

distinction of nature and culture - and what operates beyond the raw and the cooked of cooking,

namely, what is reduced to smoke, tobacco. And we find from the pen of its author, this curious thing,

attached to some little remark that he hooks onto certain medieval texts for example, on the fact that

before tobacco came to us, its place was in a way prepared by this opposite of ashes which was already

indicated with respect to honey, that in a way, the honey thing, for a long time - always - was waiting for

the tobacco-thing!

这个神话学的分析是一个遊戏，一个迷人的遊戏，因为它让我们想起的事情，就是遊戏，你们能够在里面

找到证明，就只拿最后一册来说，从第一页开始。它被称为「从蜂蜜到灰烬」，我们看到蜂蜜与烟灰之间的

关系，用许多神话的方式来表达。在自然与文化有所区分以前，蜂蜜被构想成为一种滋养的物质，準备时，

男人不在现场。生採后，经过煮蒸酿造的操作，换句话说，它最后会成为烟草的材料。我们发现，从它的

作者的笔端，描写出这种奇怪的事情，外加一些评论，例如，他对於某些中世纪的文本牵强附会的解读。

在我们发明烟草以前，它的材料是跟灰烬相反的东西所形成，这种东西被指明跟蜂蜜有关。长久以来，蜂

蜜这个东西，总是等待着被制造成为烟草。

Whether you follow or not along the path of the analysis of Claude Levi-Strauss, is it not designed to

suggest to us what we know in the practice of the unconscious and allows there to be pushed further the

critique of what Freud articulates under the name of Sacheovorstellungin? In the idealist perspective,

one thinks - and after all why would Freud not have written it in this sense -: representation of things in

so far as it is things which are represented.

3
无论你是否看得懂列文、史特劳斯的分析的途径，它的设计难道不就是要跟我们建议，我们应该知道无意

识的实践，让佛洛伊德以「後备力量」的名义，表达的批判，可以更进一步地探讨？从理念主义的观点，

我们认为，事物的符号再现，就是因为事物被用符号代表。畢竟，佛洛伊德本来大可如此单刀直入地书写。

But why should we object to thinking of the relations of things, as supporting some representations

which belong to the things themselves? Since things act as signs - with all the ambiguity that you can

put into this term), act as signs to one another, can summon one another and wait, and be ordered as

an order of things; that, without any doubt, it is on this that we operate every time that in interpreting as

analysts we make function something as Bedeutung.

但是为什麽我们反对思考事物的关系，当着是支持属於事物本身的符号再现呢？既然事物充当符号来运作，

（儘管符号这个术语，有点模棱两可），充当彼此运作的符号，互相召唤及等待，也能够充当事物的秩序，

无可置疑的，每一次我们解释精神分析时，我们运用到某件事情，充当「意义」时，我们会运用到符号。

(10) Assuredly, this is the trap. And it is not analytic work either, however amusing it may be as a game,

to rediscover in the unconscious the network and the plot of ancient myths: we will always have enough

of those!

（第十）的确，这是个陷阱。无论它作为一种遊戏，是要在无意识里，重新发现古代的神话的网络及情节，

是多麽的有趣，它並不是精神分析的工作。我们对於这种的牵强附会，实在忍无可忍！

Once we are dealing with the Bedeutung, we will find anything we want as structure from the mythical

era.

一但我们开始处理这个「意义」，我们将会找到任何我们所要的东西，当着是从神秘的时代传下来的结构。

This is the reason why, at the end of a certain time, the game wearied analysts. The fact is that they

saw that it was too easy. The game is not easy when it is a matter of texts that are collected, attested,

about existing myths.

这就是为什麽，某个时期过后，精神分析师就对这种神话遊戏，感到不胜其烦。事实是，他们看到，这种

遊戏未免太轻鬆了。而充斥在现代社会的神话文本，若是要加以收集及验证，那可是兹事体大，没那麽轻

鬆。

These are precisely not just indifferent ones. But, at the level of the unconscious of the subject in

analysis, the game is much more supple. And why? Precisely because it is clarified there, that it has

become joined to an I am not in which there is sufficiently manifested - as I said the last time - in forms

which, in the dream, make omnipresent and never completely identifiable, the function of the I.

4
这些确实不仅仅是置身事外的文本。但是，在精神分析学的主体的无意识的层次，这种遊戏可是有弹性多

了。为什麽？确实是因为它在那里被澄清，它已经跟「我没有实存」紧连在一起，是彰彰明甚，如我上一次

所说的。在梦中，各种各样的形状，使这个「我」的功用，无所不在，却又完全无法辨识。

But it is something different that ought to retain us! It is precisely the holes, in this operation of the

Bedeutung.

但这是应该包含我们在里面的不同的东西！在「人生的意义」挥洒运作的，确实就是这些空洞。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com