Logic of Phantasy 44

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑
The important thing is, what is the structure of the surfaces thus instaured.

重要的事是，这些因此而被建立的表面的结构是什麽？

The images on the left - and that I introduced the last time so that you could copy the drawing -

represent for you what constitutes the most characteristic surface to image for us the function that we

give of the double loop. It is (on the top left) the Moebius strip whose edge - namely, everything that is in

this drawing (except this, which is a profile which is only inscribed there in a way to give rise in your

imagination to the image of the support of the surface itself, namely, that here the surface turns the other

side, but this does not form part, of course, of any edge) - there only remains then the double loop,

which is the edge - the single edge of the surface in question.

左边的这些意象，我上一次介绍过，你们可以抄画下来，代表最具有特色的内涵，标示我们给予这个双重

圈套的功用。左上角的这个摩比斯带状，它的边缘，换句话说，每一样在图画里的东西（除了它是一个轮

廓，被铭记在那里，为了在你们的想像里，产生支持表面的意象，换句话说，表面变成里面，但是这样並

没有形成任何的边缘），这个双重圈套始终是在那里，是一个边缘，受到置疑的表面的单一边缘。

We can take this surface as symbolic of the subject, on condition that you consider, of course, that the

edge alone constitutes this surface. This is easy to demonstrate by the fact that if you make a cut

through the middle of this surface, this cut itself concentrates in itself the essence of the double loop.

Being a cut, which, as I might say, "turns back" onto itself, it is itself - this single cut - just by itself, the

whole Moebius surface. And the proof is that in fact, when you have made this median cut there is no

longer any Moebius surface at all! What I might call the "median cut", removed it from what you think

you are seeing, here, in the form of a surface.

1
我们可以将这个表面，当着是主体的象征，条件是，当然，你们必须认为，只有边缘才能构成表面。这个

很容易证明，假如你们穿过这个表面的中间，做一个切割，这个切割的本身会集中於这个双重圈套的本质

上。我不妨这样说，成为一种切割，会「翻转」回自己，这个单一的切割，仅是由自己造成，这整个的摩比

斯带状的表面。证据是，事实上，当你使这个中间线被切割时，摩比斯带状的表面，就完全不存在了！我

所谓的「中间线切割」，废除了它，从你们认为你们看得见的地方，以一个表面的形状。

This is what the figure on the right shows you. It shows you that once it is cut through the middle, this

surface, which previously had neither a front nor a back, had only a single face, as it had only a single

edge, now has a front and a back, which you see marked here in two different colors. It is enough, of

course, for you to imagine that each one of these colours goes to the back of the other, where because

of the cut they are continued. In other words, after the cut there is no longer a Moebius surface, but, on

(12) the contrary, something which is applicable onto a torus.

这就是右边这个图形所显示给你们的。它显示，一旦它从中间被切割，先前既没有正面，也没有背后的这

个表面，现在只有一个单一的前面，因为它只有一个单一的边缘，它会有一个正面跟一个背后。你们看到

它们在这里用不同的颜色标示。当然，这已经足够让你们想像，每一种颜色都会到达另一种颜色的背后。因

为被切割，它们继续存在那里。换句话说，那里的切割已经不再是一个摩比斯带状的表面，而是，相反的，

它是一个可以应用到一个突出形状的东西。

Which is what the two other figures show you. Namely, that if in a certain way you make this surface -

the one obtained after the cut - slide behind (a l'envers) itself, if I can express myself in that way, which

is quite well imaged in the present figure - you can by sewing - as I might say - in a different way the

edges in question, constitute in this way a new surface which is the surface of the torus, on which there

is still marked the same cut, constituted by the fundamental double loop of repetition.

这就是其它两个图形所显示给你们的。换句话说，假如你们确定要制作这个表面，这个切割以后的表面，

会滑溜到自己的背后，容我用那种方式表达，它是目前的图形里，意象相当鲜明。我不妨这样说，你们能

够用不同的方式，将这个受到置疑的边缘，缝接起来，以这种方式，组成一个新的表面，那就是突出形状

的表面。相同的切割依旧会被标示在上面，由「重复」的这基本的双重圈套组成。

These topological facts are for us extremely favourable to image something, which is what is at stake.

对於我们而言，这些地形学的事实，相当有利於用来描绘，某件岌岌可危的东西。

Namely, that just as alienation is imaged in two senses by different operations - where one represents

the necessary choice between the curtailed I am not thinking of the Es of the logical structure, the other

- an element that one cannot choose, of the alternative - which opposes, which connects the kernel of

2
the unconscious, as being this something in which it is not a matter of a thinking that is in any way

attributable to the instaured I of subjective unity, and which connects it to an I am not, clearly marked by

what I defined in the structure of the dream as the inmixing of subjects, namely, as the unfixable,

indeterminate, character of the subject assuming the thinking of the unconscious - repetition allows us to

put in correlation, in correspondence, two modes in which the subject may appear different - may

manifest itself, in its temporal conditioning - in a way that corresponds to the two statuses defined as

that of the I of alienation and as that which reveals the position of the unconscious in specific conditions,

which are none other than those of analysis.

换句话说，就像「疏离」，有两种意义，形成不同的运作。一种是，将逻辑结构的辩证法，简缩为「我没有正

在思想」，另外一种是，有一种我们无法选择的因素，代替的因素，将无意识的核心，对立或连接起来，

当着这个问题，並不是一个被归属於主体的一致性「我」的建立，而是将它连接到「我没有存在」，后者的清

楚的标示，就是我所定义的梦的结构，作为生命的主体的「内部融合」，换句话说，作为具有无意识的思想

的的主体，不可修复及无法确定的特性。
「重复」让我们能够把主体不同表现的这两个模式，联系成一贯，

让它可以显示它自己，在自身的时间的制约里，採用对应於这两种地位的方式。其中一种是，作为疏离的

「我」的地位，另一种是，显现在明确状态下的无意识的地位。后者道道地地是我们精神分析的地位。

Corresponding to the level of the temporal schema, we have the following: that the passage a l'acte is

what is allowed in the operation of alienation; that, corresponding to the other term - a term, in principle,

impossible to choose in the alienating alternative - there corresponds acting-out.

当我们要对应於时间的模式的层次，我们得到以下的结果：「诉诸行动」在疏离的运作里，被允许出现。另

外还有一个我们要对应的术语是「积极行动」。原则上，在疏离的代替中，很不可能选择它。

What does that mean? The act, I mean the act and not some manifestation of movement. Movement,

motor discharge (as it is put at the level of theory) is something that in no way is enough to constitute an

act. If you will allow me a crude image, a reflex is not an act.

那是什麽意思？「行动」，我的意思是指行动，而不是动作的某些证明。动作，也就是发出的动力（从理论

的层次来说），是某件根本就不足够组成一个「行动」的东西。容我粗略地做一个比喻，反射性的动作，並

不算是「行动」。

But after all, this arena of not-an-act (ne pas-acte) must be extended far beyond. What is being solicited

in the study of the intelligence of a higher animal, conduite de detour for example - the fact that a

monkey sees what he has to do to get at a banana when he is separated from it by a plate of glass - has

absolutely nothing to do with an act. And in truth, a very great number of your movements, as you can

well imagine - those that you will carry out between now and the end of the day - have nothing to do of

course with an act.

3
但是，畢竟，「不是一个行动」的这个鬥技场，必须做更广义的诠释。当我们研究较高级的动物的智商时，

我们所引用的内容，绝对跟一个「行动」没有关系。例如，一隻猴子看出他必须怎麽做，才能得到一根香蕉，

当中间隔着一道玻璃。事实上，你们可以想像，在目前跟晚上之间，你们能够执行许多你们的动作，当然

都是跟「一个行动」没有关系。

(13) But how define what an act is?

（第十三）但是我们如何来定义一个行动是什麽？

It is impossible to define it otherwise than on the foundation of the double loop, in other words, of

repetition. And it is precisely in this that the act is foundational for the subject.

我们不可能定义这个行动，除了以这个双重圈套作为基础。换句话说，「重复」的双重圈套。确实是在这里，

对於生命的主体而言，「行动」才有基础。

The act is, precisely, the equivalent of repetition, by itself. It is this repetition in a single line (trait) that I

designated earlier by this cut that it is possible to make in the centre of the Moebius strip. It is in itself

the double loop of the signifier.

确实地说，这个行动的本身，相当等於是「重复」。行动就是一条单一的线条特癥里的「重复」，我早先曾经

指明过，在摩比斯带状的中间，我们可能予以切割。它本身就是意符的双重圈套。

One could say, but this would be to deceive oneself, that in its case the signifier signifies itself. Because

we know that it is impossible. It is nevertheless true that it is as close as possible to this operation.

我们能够说，但是这样只是自欺欺人，意符在自己的情况里，使自己被意符化。因为我们知道这是不可能

的，这也是真实的，它相当地接近意符使自己被意符化的运作。

The subject - let us say, in the act - is equivalent to its signifier. It remains nonetheless divided.

Let us try to clarify this a little and let us put ourselves at the level of this alienation at which the I is

founded on an I am not thinking which is all the more favourable for leaving the whole field to the Es of

logical structure.

容我们这样说，在行动中的生命的主体，相当等於是它的意符，只是它仍然是分裂的状态。让我们设法稍

微澄清这一点，让我们将我们自己摆置在这个疏离的层次，在疏离里，这个「我」的基础是「我没有正在思

想」。使用「我没有正在思想」，来脱离逻辑结构的这个辩证法的整个领域，是非常有利的。

4
"I am not thinking" ... if I am, all the more in that I am not thinking (I mean: if I am only the I that the

logical

structure instaures), the medium, the line, where there can be connected these two terms, is the : I act;

this I act which is not, as I told you, a motor performance. In order that "I walk" should become an act, it

is necessary for the fact that I am walking to signify that I walk in fact and that I am saying it as such.

「我没有正在思想」、、、
「假如我生命实存」就在「我没有正在思想」里，显得更加真实。（我的意思是：「假如

我只是生命的实存」，那是这个逻辑的结构所建立的），这个中间，这条线，可以连接这两个术语，那就

是：「我诉诸行动」。我曾经告诉过你们，这个「我诉诸行动」，並不是一个动作的演出。为了让「我走路」成为

一种「行动」，必须要有这个事实存在：我正在走路，是为了使「我走路」及「我正在说这句话」，具有意义地

意符化。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com