Encore 405

再来一次

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

On the Baroque 05
论巴洛克风格

It is obvious that people have nevertheless tried to do better. There is still something
else prior to quantum physics—“ energetism” and the idea of homeostasis. What I
called inertia in the function of language is such that all speech is an energy not yet
taken up in an energetics, because that energetics is not easy to measure. Energetics
means bringing out, in energy, not quantities, but numbers chosen in a completely
arbitrary fashion, with which one arranges things in such a way that there is always a
constant somewhere. We are forced to take up the inertia in question at the level of
language itself.

显而易见，人们依旧设法要做得更好。在量子物理学之前，依旧有某件其它东西
如「生命精力学」及体内平衡学的观念。我所谓的在语言的功用中的惰性，是如
此显著，所有的言说，都是一种在生命精力学里尚未被从事的精力，因为那种
生命的精力不容易测量。生命精力学的意思是：精力所显露出来的不是数量，而
是完全任意选择的数目。我们若是以这样的方式安排事情，在某个地方，总是会
有一个固定的常数。我们不得不从语言的层次，来探讨这个受到置疑的惰性问题

What possible relationship can there be between the articulation that constitutes
language and the jouissance that reveals itself to be the substance of thought, of that
thought so easily reflected in the world by traditional science? That jouissance is the
one that makes it such that God is the Supreme Being and that that Supreme Being
can, as Aristotle said, be nothing other than the locus in which the good of all the
others is known. That doesn’t have much to do with thought—does it?—if we
consider it to be dominated above all by the inertia of language.

在组成语言的表达，跟欢爽显露自己成为思想的材料之间，或是传统科学将思
想轻易地反映到世界之中的欢爽之间，能够有怎样的关系可以被建立？欢爽是
上帝成为最崇高的生命存在，洋洋得意的表现。如亚里斯多德所说，那个最崇高
的生命存在，道道地地就是世间所知的一切品德善行运作的轨迹。那样的话，它
跟思想並没有多大的关系，不是吗？尤其是，假如我们将它视为是被语言的惰
性所支配。

It’s not very surprising that no one knew how to grasp or catch jouissance, how to
make it squeal, by using what seems to best prop up the inertia of language, namely,
the idea of a chain, in other words, bits of string—bits of string that constitute rings
and hook onto each other, though we’re not too sure how.

那也就难怪，没有人知道如何去理解或捉住欢爽，如何使欢爽快乐尖叫，即使
他们似乎拥有最能够支撑语言的惰性的工具，换句话说，一连串的观念，也就
是说，一连串的绳环。这些绳环可以形成环圈，互相套在一起，至於如何套法，
我们还不十分清楚。

I already presented this notion to you once before, and I will try to do better. Last year
—I myself am surprised, as I get older, that last year’s things seem a hundred years
away to me—I took as my theme a formulation that I felt I could base on the
Borromean knot: “ I ask you to refuse what I offer you because that’s not in it”

以前我曾经给你们呈现这个观念，我现在要设法表达得更清楚。去年（我自己都
大吃一惊，随着年岁增长，去年的事情似乎相隔百年之远），我拿一个我觉得
可以根据波罗米安环结的构想来当主题：「我要求你们抛弃掉，我曾经给你们的
东西，因为真实界並没有在那里。」

That formulation is carefully designed to have an effect, like all those I proffer. See “
L’Etourdit.” I didn’t say ‘ the saying remains forgotten” and so on—I said “ the fact
that one says.” Similarly here, I did not say “ because that’s all it is”.

那个构想经过精心设计，为了产生效果，如同我曾经提供过的设计。看一下这个
名牌「香水」，我並没有说：「格言如香水，闻过便忘掉」等等。我说的是：「我们
说的话，如香水，是个事实。」同样地，在这里，我並没有说：「真实界都在我
所说的话里。」

“ That’s not it” is the very cry by which the jouissance obtained is distinguished from
the jouissance expected. It is here that what can be said in language is specified.
Negation certainly seems to derive therefrom. But nothing more.

「真实界没有在那里」，是一声驚叫，显示我们得到的欢爽，迴然不同於我们所
预期的欢爽。就是在这里，语言所能表达的内涵，已经明确道出。否定的表达技
巧似乎起源於这里。但是，也仅是如此而已。
Structure, which connects up here, demonstrates nothing if not that it is of the same
text as jouissance, insofar as, in marking by what distance jouissance misses—the
jouissance that would be in question if “that were it”—structure does not presuppose
merely the jouissance that would be it, it also props up another.

在这里作为连接的结构，仅仅证明一件事：结构跟欢爽是属於相同的文本，因
为欢爽所漏失的距离被标示在这里。假如「真实界就是在这里」，那欢爽将会受
到置疑，因为结构並不预先假定只有欢爽在里面，它也支撑另外的东西。

Voila. This dit-mension—this dit-mension is Freud’s saying.

「重复」。这个重复，这个重复就是佛洛伊德的箴言。

Indeed, that is the proof of Freud’s existence—in a certain number of years we will
need one. Earlier I associated him with a little friend, Christ. The proof of Christ’s
existence is obvious: it’s Christianity. Christianity, in fact, is attached to it. Anyway,
for the time being, we have the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality that I asked
you to look at, because I will have to use it again concerning what I call le derive to
translate Trieb, the drift of jouissance.

的确，这是佛洛伊德存在的证据，未来某些年後，我们将需要新的啟蒙人物。早
先，我把这个啟蒙人物跟跟我的朋友，基督耶稣，联想在一起。耶稣的存在是显
而易见的。那是基督教的关系。事实上，基督教跟耶稣紧连在一起。无论如何，
目前，我们有佛洛伊德的「性学理论的三篇论文」，我要求你们看一看，因为我
将必须用到它，关於我所说的似曾相识，翻译成为「邂逅」，欢爽的飘浮。

All of that, I insist, is precisely what was covered over during the whole of
philosophical antiquity by the idea of knowledge.

我坚决认为，所有这些确实是全部古代哲学史的知识观念，所涵盖的内容。

Thank God, Aristotle was intelligent enough to isolate in the intellect agent what is at
stake in the symbolic function. He simply saw that the symbolic is where the intellect
must act. But he wasn’t intelligent enough—because he hadn’t benefited from
Christian revelation—to think that speech, even his own, by designating the
νουδthat is based only on language, concerns jouissance, the latter nevertheless
being designated metaphorically throughout his work.
谢天谢地，亚里斯多德有足够的智慧，将符号功能岌岌可危的内容，孤立於知
识的代理人之外。他仅仅看到，这个符号是知识份子必须採取行动的地方。但是
他的智慧犹有不足，因为他始终没有从基督教的啟示得到利益。他没有想到，言
说，即使是自己的言说，建立在语言之上的字，都跟欢爽有密切关系。而欢爽在
他的全部的著作里，都是用比喻的方式表达出来。

The whole business of matter and form—what a lot of old claptrap it suggests
concerning copulation! It would have allowed him to see that that’s not it at all, that
there isn’t the slightest knowledge ( connissance), but that the jouissance that prop up
the semblance thereof are something like the spectrum of white light—on the sole
condition that one see that the jouissance at stake is outside the field of that spectrum.

这完全是材料跟形式的问题。关於两者的交会，古代就有许多锦囊妙计可以使用
他本来能够看得出来，情形不是那样。这根本跟知识的问题无关，而是支撑外表
相似的内在欢爽，看起来有一点像是白色光的光谱，只有一种可能的状况，看
到欢爽岌岌可危的人，站在那个光谱的领域之外。

It’s a question of metaphor. Regarding the status of jouissance, we must situate the
false finality as corresponding to the pure fallacy of a jouissance that would
supposedly correspond to the sexual relationship. In this respect, all of the jouissances
are but rivals of the finality that would be constituted if jouissance had the slightest
relationship with the sexual relationship.

这是一个比喻的问题。关於欢爽的地位，我们必须将虚假的最后定论，定位在跟
欢爽的纯粹谬误相一致。那个谬误认为欢爽是跟性的关系相一致。在这一方面，
所有的欢爽恰恰就是跟那虚假的定论背道而驰。假如欢爽跟性的关系有任何关系
的话，那个虚假的定论才能成立。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com