拉康思想研究Ethics 215
Ethics 215
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
XVI The death drive
第16章 死亡冲动
CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM
创造主义与进化主义
WOMAN AS EX NIHILO
女人作为从空无中创造
By the way this is what explains the extraordinary series of ten-line stanzas
by the poet Arnaud Daniel that I read to you. One finds there the response
of the shepherdess to her shepherd, for the woman responds for once from
her place, and instead of playing along, at the extreme point of his invocation
to the signifier, she warns the poet of the form she may take as signifier. I
am, she tells him, nothing more than the emptiness to be found in my own
internal cesspit, not to say anything worse. Just blow in that for a while and
see if your sublimation holds up.
顺便说一下，这就是用来解释这个特别的系列，有关我跟你们阅读的诗人阿拿德、丹尼尔的十行诗。我们发现女牧羊人对于她的牧羊人的回答。因为这个女人至少有一次从她的立场回答。她并没有协同遊戏，在他召唤到这个能指的极端点，反而警告诗人，她可能会採取怎样的形态，作为能指。她告诉他，我仅仅就是能够被发现的这个空无，在我自己内部的水槽，估且不每下愈况。请就出现那里一下子，然后瞧瞧你们的昇华能否维持。
That's not to say there is no other solution to the perspective of the field
of the Thing. Another solution that is also historically specific and, curiously
enough, occurs at a period that isn't so different from the one I have just
referred to, is perhaps a little more serious. It is called in Sade the Supreme-
Being-in-Evil.
那并不是说，对于无意识物象的领域的观点，没有其它解决方法。在历史上也是明确的另外一个解决，耐人寻味地，发生在这个时期，跟我刚刚提到的这个时期，并没有什么不同，这个解决或许稍微严肃一点。在萨德那里，它被称为「邪恶中的崇高生命实存」。
I say Sade because I prefer relatively close, living references to remote
ones, but it is not just an invention of Sade's. It belongs to a long historical
tradition, which goes at least as far back as Manicheism, if not beyond, that
Manicheism which was already referred to in the time of courtly love.
我说萨德，因为我比较喜欢相当靠近的生活指称，胜过有遥远的生活指称，但是这个邪恶中的崇高生命实存不仅是萨德的独创发明。它属于漫长历史的传统，这个传统至少回溯到「善恶双重论」，即使没有再超过。在骑士之爱的时代，这个「善恶双重论」已经被提到。
In the time of courtly love there were people to whom I made a passing
reference, the Cathars, and they did not doubt the fact that the Prince of this
world was quite similar to this Supreme-Being-in-Evil. The Gnmmigkeit of
Boehme's God, fundamental evil as one of the dimensions of supreme life,
proves that it is not simply in libertine and antireligious thought that this
dimension may be evoked.
在骑士之爱的时代，有些人们，我偶尔提到他们，卡特里神秘教派。他们并没有怀疑这个事实：这个世界的王子相当类同这个「邪恶的崇高生命实存」Boehme的天神的Gnmmigkeit，是基本的邪恶，作为崇高生命的维度，证明它不仅具有这个维度可能被召唤的放荡及反宗教的思想。
The Cathars were not Gnostics; everything indicates that they were even
good Christians. The practice of their sacrament, the consolamentum, is sufficient
proof of that. The idea they had of salvation, which is not different
from the fundamental idea of Christianity, was that there is a word that saves;
and the consolamentum was nothing more than the transmission from one
subject to another of the blessing of this word. They were people who placed
all of their hope in the advent of a word. In short, people who took quite
seriously the message of Christianity.
这些卡特里神秘教派并不是诺斯教派，每样东西指示著，他们甚至是善良的基督教徒。他们的神圣的实践是充分的证据。他们拥有救赎的观念，这跟基督教的基本观念并没有不同。这救赎的观念是：有一个拯救的「道」，而这个consolamentum仅仅就是从这个「道」的幸福的主体，转移到另外一个主体。他们将他们的所有希望都放置在一个「道」的来临。总之，他们很认真地看待基督教的讯息。
The trouble is that for such a word to be not so much effective as viable,
it has to be separated from discourse. Yet there is nothing more difficult than
separating a word from discourse. You put your faith in a word that saves,
but as soon as you begin at this level, the whole discourse comes running
after you. And this is something that the Cathars didn't fail to notice in the
shape of the ecclesiastical authorities, who manifested themselves briefly as
the bad word and taught them that one still has to explain oneself even if one
belongs to the pure. Now everybody knows that as soon as one begins to be
questioned by discourse on this subject, even if it is the discourse of the
Church, then the matter can only end in one way. You are definitively silenced.
麻烦的是，为了让这样一个「道」不是有效，而是可实践，它必须跟辞说分开。可是，没有事情比将「道」跟辞说分开。你们将你们的信仰放置在救赎的「道」。但是你们一从这个层次开始，整个的辞说就尾随你们而来。这就是卡特里教派一定会注意到的东西，以天上诸神的形态。他们短暂地展现他们自己，作为恶兆的「道」，并且教导他们，我们依旧必须解释自己，即使我们属于这个纯洁教派。现在众所周知，当我们一开始受到辞说的质疑，对于这个主体，即使那是教会的辞说，然后事情仅能够以一种方式结束。你们明确地被静默下来。
We have now arrived at a certain limit, that is to say, the field which opens
on to what is involved relative to desire. How can we get any closer? How
can we question this field? What happens when one doesn't project one's
dreams there in a sublimated way, and that thematics emerges to which the
most sober of minds are reduced, the most commonplace and the most scientific,
even including a certain petty bourgeois from Vienna? What happens
to us whenever the hour of desire sounds?
我们现在到达某个极限。换句话说，这个领域展开到相对于欲望所牵涉的东西。你们如何变得更加靠近？你们如何能够质疑这个领域？当我们并没有以昇华的方式投射我们的梦在那里，会发生什么事？这些主题出现，即使最清醒的心灵都被沦落到那里，即使是最平凡，最具有科学的心灵，甚至包括某些从维也纳过来的布尔乔亚小资产阶级。每当欲望的时刻来到，我们会发生什么事？
Well, we don't get any closer and for the best of reasons.
呵呵，我们并没有更加靠近，理由很充分。
This will be the focus of my next lecture. One doesn't get any closer on
account of the very reasons that structure the domain of the good in the most
traditional sense, which is linked by a whole tradition to pleasure. It wasn't
the coming of Freud that introduced a radical revolution in antiquity's point
of view on the good insofar as it can be deduced from the paths of pleasure.
I will try next time to show you where things stood at the time of Freud; this
historical crossroads I am taking you back to is that of utility.
这将是我下次演讲的焦点。我们并没有比较靠近，因为这些理由: 在传统的意义，善良的领域的结构，跟快乐的整个的传统息息相关。并不是弗洛依德的来临，才以古代的观点介绍激烈的革命，对于这个善良，因为它能够被推论，从快乐的各种途径。下一次，我将会尝试跟你们显示，在弗洛依德的时代，事情是什么样子。我正在带你们回到的这个历史的十字路口是功利性的十字路口。
This time I hope to gauge for you in a definitive way and from a Freudian
point of view the ethical register of utilitarianism. Freud on this occasion
allows himself to go definitively beyond it; he articulates that which is basically
valid in it and that which at the same time bounds it, and points to its limits.
这次，我希望跟你们以一种明确的方式评估功利主义的伦理的铭记，从弗洛依德的观点。在这个场合，弗洛依德让他自己能够明确地超越它。他表达基本上在功利主义是正确的东西，同时也是约束它的东西，并且指向它的各种限制。
I will try to discuss the point of view not only of the progress of thought,
but also of the evolution of history, in order to demystify the Platonic and
the Aristotelian view of the good, indeed of the Supreme Good, and to situate
it on the level of the economy of goods. It is essential to grasp the issue from
the Freudian perspective of the pleasure principle and the reality principle,
if one is go on to conceive the novelty of what Freud brings to the domain of
ethics.
我将会尝试讨论不但是思想的进步的这个观点，而且是历史的进化论的观点，为了替柏拉图及亚里斯多德对善的观点，除掉神秘化，那确实就是崇高的善的观点，并且为了定位这个善，在货物的经济学的层次。重要的是要从弗洛依德的快乐原则与现实原则的观点，来理解这个问题。假如我们想要继续构想这个新奇性，弗洛依德带给伦理学的领域的新奇性。
Beyond this place of restraint constituted by the concatenation and circuit
of goods, a field nevertheless remains open to us that allows us to draw closer
to the central field. The good is not the only, the true, or the single barrier
that separates us from it.
超越这个约束的位置，由货物的互相连锁及循环所形成的约束，可是一个领域始终展开给予我们。这个领域让我们能够更加靠近这个中心的领域。善并不是这个唯一，这个真实，或这个单一的阻碍，将我们跟这个中心领域分开。
What is this second barrier? I will tell you right away, and it will probably
seem quite natural to you once I have told you. But it isn't after all so self evident.
It is a domain in relation to which Freud always revealed a great deal
of reticence; and it really is strange that he didn't identify it. The true barrier
that holds the subject back in front of the unspeakable field of radical desire
that is the field of absolute destruction, of destruction beyond putrefaction,
is properly speaking the aesthetic phenomenon where it is identified with the
experience of beauty - beauty in all its shining radiance, beauty that has been
called the splendor of truth. It is obviously because truth is not pretty to look
at that beauty is, if not its splendor, then at least its envelope.
第二个阻碍是什么呢？我将立刻告诉你们，你们将可能觉得它很自然，一旦我已经告诉你们。但是这毕竟并不是不证自明的。这是一个领域，相对于这个领域，弗洛依德总是显示许多的沉默。这确实是奇怪的，他没有辨认出它。这个真正的阻碍将主体挡住，在激烈欲望的无以言喻的领域面前，那就是绝对毁灭的领域，超越堕落的毁灭的领域。适当地说，它是这个美学的现象，在那里，它被辨认是美的经验。光辉灿烂的美，所谓的真理的辉煌的美。这显而易见是因为真理看起来并不美丽，以致于美至少是真理的涵盖，即使不是真理的辉煌。
In other words, I will explain next time our forward march resumes that
on the scale that separates us from the central field of desire, if the good
constitutes the first stopping place, the beautiful forms the second and gets
closer. It stops us, but it also points in the direction of the field of destruction.
换句话说，下一次我们前进重新开始时，我将解释，将为们跟欲望的中心领域分开的这种规模。假如善形成第一个阻碍位置，美就形成第二个阻碍位置，并且更加靠近。它阻碍我们，但是它也指向毁灭领域的方向。
That in this sense, when one aims for the center of moral experience, the
beautiful is closer to evil than to the good, shouldn't, I hope, surprise you
very much. As we have long said in French: "Better is the enemy of the
good."
May 4, I960
从这个意义，当我们目标是道德经验的中心，美更加靠近邪恶，而不是靠近善。我希望，这难道不会强烈惊吓你们？如同我们长久以来用法文所说的，「善的敌人更好。」
1960年5月4日
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
XVI The death drive
第16章 死亡冲动
CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM
创造主义与进化主义
WOMAN AS EX NIHILO
女人作为从空无中创造
By the way this is what explains the extraordinary series of ten-line stanzas
by the poet Arnaud Daniel that I read to you. One finds there the response
of the shepherdess to her shepherd, for the woman responds for once from
her place, and instead of playing along, at the extreme point of his invocation
to the signifier, she warns the poet of the form she may take as signifier. I
am, she tells him, nothing more than the emptiness to be found in my own
internal cesspit, not to say anything worse. Just blow in that for a while and
see if your sublimation holds up.
顺便说一下，这就是用来解释这个特别的系列，有关我跟你们阅读的诗人阿拿德、丹尼尔的十行诗。我们发现女牧羊人对于她的牧羊人的回答。因为这个女人至少有一次从她的立场回答。她并没有协同遊戏，在他召唤到这个能指的极端点，反而警告诗人，她可能会採取怎样的形态，作为能指。她告诉他，我仅仅就是能够被发现的这个空无，在我自己内部的水槽，估且不每下愈况。请就出现那里一下子，然后瞧瞧你们的昇华能否维持。
That's not to say there is no other solution to the perspective of the field
of the Thing. Another solution that is also historically specific and, curiously
enough, occurs at a period that isn't so different from the one I have just
referred to, is perhaps a little more serious. It is called in Sade the Supreme-
Being-in-Evil.
那并不是说，对于无意识物象的领域的观点，没有其它解决方法。在历史上也是明确的另外一个解决，耐人寻味地，发生在这个时期，跟我刚刚提到的这个时期，并没有什么不同，这个解决或许稍微严肃一点。在萨德那里，它被称为「邪恶中的崇高生命实存」。
I say Sade because I prefer relatively close, living references to remote
ones, but it is not just an invention of Sade's. It belongs to a long historical
tradition, which goes at least as far back as Manicheism, if not beyond, that
Manicheism which was already referred to in the time of courtly love.
我说萨德，因为我比较喜欢相当靠近的生活指称，胜过有遥远的生活指称，但是这个邪恶中的崇高生命实存不仅是萨德的独创发明。它属于漫长历史的传统，这个传统至少回溯到「善恶双重论」，即使没有再超过。在骑士之爱的时代，这个「善恶双重论」已经被提到。
In the time of courtly love there were people to whom I made a passing
reference, the Cathars, and they did not doubt the fact that the Prince of this
world was quite similar to this Supreme-Being-in-Evil. The Gnmmigkeit of
Boehme's God, fundamental evil as one of the dimensions of supreme life,
proves that it is not simply in libertine and antireligious thought that this
dimension may be evoked.
在骑士之爱的时代，有些人们，我偶尔提到他们，卡特里神秘教派。他们并没有怀疑这个事实：这个世界的王子相当类同这个「邪恶的崇高生命实存」Boehme的天神的Gnmmigkeit，是基本的邪恶，作为崇高生命的维度，证明它不仅具有这个维度可能被召唤的放荡及反宗教的思想。
The Cathars were not Gnostics; everything indicates that they were even
good Christians. The practice of their sacrament, the consolamentum, is sufficient
proof of that. The idea they had of salvation, which is not different
from the fundamental idea of Christianity, was that there is a word that saves;
and the consolamentum was nothing more than the transmission from one
subject to another of the blessing of this word. They were people who placed
all of their hope in the advent of a word. In short, people who took quite
seriously the message of Christianity.
这些卡特里神秘教派并不是诺斯教派，每样东西指示著，他们甚至是善良的基督教徒。他们的神圣的实践是充分的证据。他们拥有救赎的观念，这跟基督教的基本观念并没有不同。这救赎的观念是：有一个拯救的「道」，而这个consolamentum仅仅就是从这个「道」的幸福的主体，转移到另外一个主体。他们将他们的所有希望都放置在一个「道」的来临。总之，他们很认真地看待基督教的讯息。
The trouble is that for such a word to be not so much effective as viable,
it has to be separated from discourse. Yet there is nothing more difficult than
separating a word from discourse. You put your faith in a word that saves,
but as soon as you begin at this level, the whole discourse comes running
after you. And this is something that the Cathars didn't fail to notice in the
shape of the ecclesiastical authorities, who manifested themselves briefly as
the bad word and taught them that one still has to explain oneself even if one
belongs to the pure. Now everybody knows that as soon as one begins to be
questioned by discourse on this subject, even if it is the discourse of the
Church, then the matter can only end in one way. You are definitively silenced.
麻烦的是，为了让这样一个「道」不是有效，而是可实践，它必须跟辞说分开。可是，没有事情比将「道」跟辞说分开。你们将你们的信仰放置在救赎的「道」。但是你们一从这个层次开始，整个的辞说就尾随你们而来。这就是卡特里教派一定会注意到的东西，以天上诸神的形态。他们短暂地展现他们自己，作为恶兆的「道」，并且教导他们，我们依旧必须解释自己，即使我们属于这个纯洁教派。现在众所周知，当我们一开始受到辞说的质疑，对于这个主体，即使那是教会的辞说，然后事情仅能够以一种方式结束。你们明确地被静默下来。
We have now arrived at a certain limit, that is to say, the field which opens
on to what is involved relative to desire. How can we get any closer? How
can we question this field? What happens when one doesn't project one's
dreams there in a sublimated way, and that thematics emerges to which the
most sober of minds are reduced, the most commonplace and the most scientific,
even including a certain petty bourgeois from Vienna? What happens
to us whenever the hour of desire sounds?
我们现在到达某个极限。换句话说，这个领域展开到相对于欲望所牵涉的东西。你们如何变得更加靠近？你们如何能够质疑这个领域？当我们并没有以昇华的方式投射我们的梦在那里，会发生什么事？这些主题出现，即使最清醒的心灵都被沦落到那里，即使是最平凡，最具有科学的心灵，甚至包括某些从维也纳过来的布尔乔亚小资产阶级。每当欲望的时刻来到，我们会发生什么事？
Well, we don't get any closer and for the best of reasons.
呵呵，我们并没有更加靠近，理由很充分。
This will be the focus of my next lecture. One doesn't get any closer on
account of the very reasons that structure the domain of the good in the most
traditional sense, which is linked by a whole tradition to pleasure. It wasn't
the coming of Freud that introduced a radical revolution in antiquity's point
of view on the good insofar as it can be deduced from the paths of pleasure.
I will try next time to show you where things stood at the time of Freud; this
historical crossroads I am taking you back to is that of utility.
这将是我下次演讲的焦点。我们并没有比较靠近，因为这些理由: 在传统的意义，善良的领域的结构，跟快乐的整个的传统息息相关。并不是弗洛依德的来临，才以古代的观点介绍激烈的革命，对于这个善良，因为它能够被推论，从快乐的各种途径。下一次，我将会尝试跟你们显示，在弗洛依德的时代，事情是什么样子。我正在带你们回到的这个历史的十字路口是功利性的十字路口。
This time I hope to gauge for you in a definitive way and from a Freudian
point of view the ethical register of utilitarianism. Freud on this occasion
allows himself to go definitively beyond it; he articulates that which is basically
valid in it and that which at the same time bounds it, and points to its limits.
这次，我希望跟你们以一种明确的方式评估功利主义的伦理的铭记，从弗洛依德的观点。在这个场合，弗洛依德让他自己能够明确地超越它。他表达基本上在功利主义是正确的东西，同时也是约束它的东西，并且指向它的各种限制。
I will try to discuss the point of view not only of the progress of thought,
but also of the evolution of history, in order to demystify the Platonic and
the Aristotelian view of the good, indeed of the Supreme Good, and to situate
it on the level of the economy of goods. It is essential to grasp the issue from
the Freudian perspective of the pleasure principle and the reality principle,
if one is go on to conceive the novelty of what Freud brings to the domain of
ethics.
我将会尝试讨论不但是思想的进步的这个观点，而且是历史的进化论的观点，为了替柏拉图及亚里斯多德对善的观点，除掉神秘化，那确实就是崇高的善的观点，并且为了定位这个善，在货物的经济学的层次。重要的是要从弗洛依德的快乐原则与现实原则的观点，来理解这个问题。假如我们想要继续构想这个新奇性，弗洛依德带给伦理学的领域的新奇性。
Beyond this place of restraint constituted by the concatenation and circuit
of goods, a field nevertheless remains open to us that allows us to draw closer
to the central field. The good is not the only, the true, or the single barrier
that separates us from it.
超越这个约束的位置，由货物的互相连锁及循环所形成的约束，可是一个领域始终展开给予我们。这个领域让我们能够更加靠近这个中心的领域。善并不是这个唯一，这个真实，或这个单一的阻碍，将我们跟这个中心领域分开。
What is this second barrier? I will tell you right away, and it will probably
seem quite natural to you once I have told you. But it isn't after all so self evident.
It is a domain in relation to which Freud always revealed a great deal
of reticence; and it really is strange that he didn't identify it. The true barrier
that holds the subject back in front of the unspeakable field of radical desire
that is the field of absolute destruction, of destruction beyond putrefaction,
is properly speaking the aesthetic phenomenon where it is identified with the
experience of beauty - beauty in all its shining radiance, beauty that has been
called the splendor of truth. It is obviously because truth is not pretty to look
at that beauty is, if not its splendor, then at least its envelope.
第二个阻碍是什么呢？我将立刻告诉你们，你们将可能觉得它很自然，一旦我已经告诉你们。但是这毕竟并不是不证自明的。这是一个领域，相对于这个领域，弗洛依德总是显示许多的沉默。这确实是奇怪的，他没有辨认出它。这个真正的阻碍将主体挡住，在激烈欲望的无以言喻的领域面前，那就是绝对毁灭的领域，超越堕落的毁灭的领域。适当地说，它是这个美学的现象，在那里，它被辨认是美的经验。光辉灿烂的美，所谓的真理的辉煌的美。这显而易见是因为真理看起来并不美丽，以致于美至少是真理的涵盖，即使不是真理的辉煌。
In other words, I will explain next time our forward march resumes that
on the scale that separates us from the central field of desire, if the good
constitutes the first stopping place, the beautiful forms the second and gets
closer. It stops us, but it also points in the direction of the field of destruction.
换句话说，下一次我们前进重新开始时，我将解释，将为们跟欲望的中心领域分开的这种规模。假如善形成第一个阻碍位置，美就形成第二个阻碍位置，并且更加靠近。它阻碍我们，但是它也指向毁灭领域的方向。
That in this sense, when one aims for the center of moral experience, the
beautiful is closer to evil than to the good, shouldn't, I hope, surprise you
very much. As we have long said in French: "Better is the enemy of the
good."
May 4, I960
从这个意义，当我们目标是道德经验的中心，美更加靠近邪恶，而不是靠近善。我希望，这难道不会强烈惊吓你们？如同我们长久以来用法文所说的，「善的敌人更好。」
1960年5月4日
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
> 我来回应