Encore
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
论欢爽
It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part - after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of "I don't want to know anything about it."
What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an "I don't want to know anything about it." But - the all important question - is it the same one?
Is your "I don't want to know anything about it" regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don't think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this "I don't want to know anything about it" that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my "I don't want to know anything about it," it'll be quite some time before you reach the same point.
The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.
1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s'oupire.4 That has nothing to do with "I" or "y°u " ~ je ne t'oupire pas, ni tu ne m'oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s'oupirer).
That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.
To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond - in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being - that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.
I won't leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about - jouissance.
今天我将不会离开这个床，我将会提醒这个陪审员，法律基本上是谈论到我正要跟你们谈论的东西---欢爽。
Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed - squeeze each other tight (s'étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.
A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. "Usufruct" - that's a legal notion, isn't it? - brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?
That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. "Usufruct" means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don't use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.
What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).
欢爽是什么？ 在此，它等于就仅仅是一个负面的例子。欢爽就是充当没有任何目的之用。
I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance - Enjoy!
Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the "after you" period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course - namely, Aristotle's ethics.
A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle's view of being to Bentham's utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value - that is, the instrumental status - of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.
Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: "Jouissance of the Other," of the Other with a capital O, "of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love."12
Encore
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
论欢爽
It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part - after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of "I don't want to know anything about it."
What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an "I don't want to know anything about it." But - the all important question - is it the same one?
Is your "I don't want to know anything about it" regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don't think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this "I don't want to know anything about it" that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my "I don't want to know anything about it," it'll be quite some time before you reach the same point.
The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.
1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s'oupire.4 That has nothing to do with "I" or "y°u " ~ je ne t'oupire pas, ni tu ne m'oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s'oupirer).
That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.
To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond - in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being - that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.
I won't leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about - jouissance.
今天我将不会离开这个床，我将会提醒这个陪审员，法律基本上是谈论到我正要跟你们谈论的东西---欢爽。
Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed - squeeze each other tight (s'étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.
A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. "Usufruct" - that's a legal notion, isn't it? - brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?
That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. "Usufruct" means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don't use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.
What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).
欢爽是什么？ 在此，它等于就仅仅是一个负面的例子。欢爽就是充当没有任何目的之用。
I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance - Enjoy!
Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the "after you" period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course - namely, Aristotle's ethics.
A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle's view of being to Bentham's utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value - that is, the instrumental status - of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.
Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: "Jouissance of the Other," of the Other with a capital O, "of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love."12
拉康思想研究
Encore
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
论欢爽
It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part - after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of "I don't want to know anything about it."
因为偶然因缘，我并没有出版「精神分析伦理学」。在当时，在我这边是出于礼貌---你们先请，请你们不用客气，替我当先锋。随着时间过去，我学习到关于它，我能够说更多的话。 然后我体会到，组成我的论述的内容，是一种「我不想要知道关于它。」
That is no doubt why, with the passage of time, I am still (encore) here, and you are too. I never cease to be amazed by it. . . ?
无可置疑地，随着时间过去，为什么我依旧还在这里（继续再来），你们也是。对于它，我永远不会停止感到惊奇…?
What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an "I don't want to know anything about it." But - the all important question - is it the same one?
有一阵子，对于我运作有利的东西，在你们那边也会运作有利。你们在此地大多数人， 这一句「对于它，我不想要知道什么。」但是，这个非常重要的问题是： 这是相同的问题吗？
Is your "I don't want to know anything about it" regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don't think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this "I don't want to know anything about it" that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my "I don't want to know anything about it," it'll be quite some time before you reach the same point.
在你们的「对于它，我不想要知道什么」，关于某种的知识。这个知识一点一滴地传递给予你们，在我身上运作的是什么？ 我不这样认为。 确实是因为你们认为，我从跟你们不同的地方开始，在这个「对于它，我不想要知道什么。」你们发现你们自己跟我连系在一块。 由于那样，虽然关于你们，我确实仅是能够在这里，处于一位分析者的立场，由于我的「关于它，我不想要知道任何事情。」要过一段相当长的时间后，你们才会到达这个相同点。
That is why it is only when yours seems adequate to you that you can, if you are one of my analysands, normally detach yourself from your analysis.
那就是为什么，当你们的立场对于而言，似乎是胜任，你们才会正常地将你们自己，跟你们的精神分析区隔开了，假如你们是我的分析者的话。
The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.
我从这里获得的结论是： 跟人们一直在说的相反， 在我作为分析师的立场，跟我在此地的作为之间，并没有矛盾。
1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s'oupire.4 That has nothing to do with "I" or "y°u " ~ je ne t'oupire pas, ni tu ne m'oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s'oupirer).
去年，我将我认为要跟你演说的标题是「每况愈下」，然后是「令自己叹息」。那跟这个「我」或「你」丝毫没有关系。我们的途径，精神分析论述的途径，仅是顺着这个狭窄的限制前进，这把刀子的锋利边缘前进。情况是如此，以致于在别的地方，它仅会每况愈下。
That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.
那就是这个论述作为我的研究的基础。然后，今年重新开始它。我首先将要认为你们躺在床上， 一种被善为利用的床。你们两个人躺在床上。
To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond - in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being - that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.
对于某个人， 一位陪审员，他曾经好心地询问到我的论述。我感觉我能够响应，为了给他感觉到我的论述的基础。 换句话说， 语言并不是这个言说的主体。 我并不觉得我有什么不合适，必须要在法律的学校演说。 因为在这所学校，法规的存在表达很清楚： 语言存在于那里， 而且分开，因为语言是经历好几百年累积形成。而言说的主体，众所周知就是人， 却是完全不同的另一回事。因此，我开始就假定你们躺在床上，礼貌要求，我应该跟他道歉。
I won't leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about - jouissance.
今天我将不会离开这个床，我将会提醒这个陪审员，法律基本上是谈论到我正要跟你们谈论的东西---欢爽。
Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed - squeeze each other tight (s'étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.
法律并没于忽略这个床。 例如，根据明细的普通法，同居关系，意思是以共同居住为基础。我现在将要做的，是从被法律遮蔽的剩余的部分开始。 换句话说， 我们在那个床上所做的---互相紧抱在一块。我从这个限制开始。假如我们想要认真谈论，我们确实必须从那个限制开始。换句话说，为了建立这个系列，对于接近这个限制的方法。
A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. "Usufruct" - that's a legal notion, isn't it? - brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?
在此有一个字，让法律与欢爽之间的关系，清楚显现。 那是一个法律的观念，不是吗？ 它以一个字，将我在讨论伦理学的研讨班所提到的内容贯穿起来。换句话说，在实用性与欢爽之间的差异。 实用性充当什么目的？
That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. "Usufruct" means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don't use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.
实用性从来没有清楚地被定义，由于言说的主体拥有这个巨大的尊敬，对于语言。 因为就工具而言，「共有权」意味着，你能够享受你的工具，但是一定不要浪费它们。当你享有某个遗产的共有权，你能享受这个遗产，只要你不要过分消耗它。 那很清楚地就是法律的本质---区分，分配，或是重新再分配每一样被认为是「欢爽」的东西。
What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).
欢爽是什么？ 在此，它等于就仅仅是一个负面的例子。欢爽就是充当没有任何目的之用。
I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance - Enjoy!
我正在此指向由这个欢爽的权利的领域暗示的保留。权利并不是义务。没有一样东西会强迫任何人享受，除了超我。 超我是欢爽的命令---享受吧！
Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the "after you" period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course - namely, Aristotle's ethics.
在此我们看到由精神分析论述研究的这个转折点。沿着这条途径，在我让它过去的这个「你们先行」的这段时期后，我尝试显示： 精神分析并不容许我们保持在我开始的那个层次，当然表示尊敬地说---也就是说，亚力斯多德的伦理学。
A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle's view of being to Bentham's utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value - that is, the instrumental status - of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.
随着时间过去，有某种的漏失发生。时间的过去并没有形成进步，反而是问题的逃避，避开从亚力斯多德的生命实存的观点，到边沁的功利主义。 换句话说，到证明语言的使用价值，也就是工具性的地位的幻想的理论。就是从那个观点，我回到生命实存的地位的问题，从统治的善，作为沉思的客体，根据这个基础， 人们以前相信，他们能够建立伦理学的华夏。
Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: "Jouissance of the Other," of the Other with a capital O, "of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love."12
因此，我将你们留置在你们在这个床上的设计。我将出去，然后再一次地，我将在门上书写以下的句子:「大彼者的欢爽」。这个大彼者有一个大写字母O，「象征大彼者的大彼者的身体，并不是爱的讯息。」
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
Encore
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
论欢爽
It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part - after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of "I don't want to know anything about it."
因为偶然因缘，我并没有出版「精神分析伦理学」。在当时，在我这边是出于礼貌---你们先请，请你们不用客气，替我当先锋。随着时间过去，我学习到关于它，我能够说更多的话。 然后我体会到，组成我的论述的内容，是一种「我不想要知道关于它。」
That is no doubt why, with the passage of time, I am still (encore) here, and you are too. I never cease to be amazed by it. . . ?
无可置疑地，随着时间过去，为什么我依旧还在这里（继续再来），你们也是。对于它，我永远不会停止感到惊奇…?
What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an "I don't want to know anything about it." But - the all important question - is it the same one?
有一阵子，对于我运作有利的东西，在你们那边也会运作有利。你们在此地大多数人， 这一句「对于它，我不想要知道什么。」但是，这个非常重要的问题是： 这是相同的问题吗？
Is your "I don't want to know anything about it" regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don't think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this "I don't want to know anything about it" that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my "I don't want to know anything about it," it'll be quite some time before you reach the same point.
在你们的「对于它，我不想要知道什么」，关于某种的知识。这个知识一点一滴地传递给予你们，在我身上运作的是什么？ 我不这样认为。 确实是因为你们认为，我从跟你们不同的地方开始，在这个「对于它，我不想要知道什么。」你们发现你们自己跟我连系在一块。 由于那样，虽然关于你们，我确实仅是能够在这里，处于一位分析者的立场，由于我的「关于它，我不想要知道任何事情。」要过一段相当长的时间后，你们才会到达这个相同点。
That is why it is only when yours seems adequate to you that you can, if you are one of my analysands, normally detach yourself from your analysis.
那就是为什么，当你们的立场对于而言，似乎是胜任，你们才会正常地将你们自己，跟你们的精神分析区隔开了，假如你们是我的分析者的话。
The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.
我从这里获得的结论是： 跟人们一直在说的相反， 在我作为分析师的立场，跟我在此地的作为之间，并没有矛盾。
1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s'oupire.4 That has nothing to do with "I" or "y°u " ~ je ne t'oupire pas, ni tu ne m'oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s'oupirer).
去年，我将我认为要跟你演说的标题是「每况愈下」，然后是「令自己叹息」。那跟这个「我」或「你」丝毫没有关系。我们的途径，精神分析论述的途径，仅是顺着这个狭窄的限制前进，这把刀子的锋利边缘前进。情况是如此，以致于在别的地方，它仅会每况愈下。
That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.
那就是这个论述作为我的研究的基础。然后，今年重新开始它。我首先将要认为你们躺在床上， 一种被善为利用的床。你们两个人躺在床上。
To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond - in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being - that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.
对于某个人， 一位陪审员，他曾经好心地询问到我的论述。我感觉我能够响应，为了给他感觉到我的论述的基础。 换句话说， 语言并不是这个言说的主体。 我并不觉得我有什么不合适，必须要在法律的学校演说。 因为在这所学校，法规的存在表达很清楚： 语言存在于那里， 而且分开，因为语言是经历好几百年累积形成。而言说的主体，众所周知就是人， 却是完全不同的另一回事。因此，我开始就假定你们躺在床上，礼貌要求，我应该跟他道歉。
I won't leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about - jouissance.
今天我将不会离开这个床，我将会提醒这个陪审员，法律基本上是谈论到我正要跟你们谈论的东西---欢爽。
Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed - squeeze each other tight (s'étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.
法律并没于忽略这个床。 例如，根据明细的普通法，同居关系，意思是以共同居住为基础。我现在将要做的，是从被法律遮蔽的剩余的部分开始。 换句话说， 我们在那个床上所做的---互相紧抱在一块。我从这个限制开始。假如我们想要认真谈论，我们确实必须从那个限制开始。换句话说，为了建立这个系列，对于接近这个限制的方法。
A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. "Usufruct" - that's a legal notion, isn't it? - brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?
在此有一个字，让法律与欢爽之间的关系，清楚显现。 那是一个法律的观念，不是吗？ 它以一个字，将我在讨论伦理学的研讨班所提到的内容贯穿起来。换句话说，在实用性与欢爽之间的差异。 实用性充当什么目的？
That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. "Usufruct" means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don't use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.
实用性从来没有清楚地被定义，由于言说的主体拥有这个巨大的尊敬，对于语言。 因为就工具而言，「共有权」意味着，你能够享受你的工具，但是一定不要浪费它们。当你享有某个遗产的共有权，你能享受这个遗产，只要你不要过分消耗它。 那很清楚地就是法律的本质---区分，分配，或是重新再分配每一样被认为是「欢爽」的东西。
What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).
欢爽是什么？ 在此，它等于就仅仅是一个负面的例子。欢爽就是充当没有任何目的之用。
I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance - Enjoy!
我正在此指向由这个欢爽的权利的领域暗示的保留。权利并不是义务。没有一样东西会强迫任何人享受，除了超我。 超我是欢爽的命令---享受吧！
Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the "after you" period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course - namely, Aristotle's ethics.
在此我们看到由精神分析论述研究的这个转折点。沿着这条途径，在我让它过去的这个「你们先行」的这段时期后，我尝试显示： 精神分析并不容许我们保持在我开始的那个层次，当然表示尊敬地说---也就是说，亚力斯多德的伦理学。
A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle's view of being to Bentham's utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value - that is, the instrumental status - of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.
随着时间过去，有某种的漏失发生。时间的过去并没有形成进步，反而是问题的逃避，避开从亚力斯多德的生命实存的观点，到边沁的功利主义。 换句话说，到证明语言的使用价值，也就是工具性的地位的幻想的理论。就是从那个观点，我回到生命实存的地位的问题，从统治的善，作为沉思的客体，根据这个基础， 人们以前相信，他们能够建立伦理学的华夏。
Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: "Jouissance of the Other," of the Other with a capital O, "of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love."12
因此，我将你们留置在你们在这个床上的设计。我将出去，然后再一次地，我将在门上书写以下的句子:「大彼者的欢爽」。这个大彼者有一个大写字母O，「象征大彼者的大彼者的身体，并不是爱的讯息。」
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
> 我来回应