Logic of Phantasy 79

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 18
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 18: Wednesday, April 26, 1967

The psychoanalyst must come to conceive of the nature of what he is handling, as this dross (scorie)

Being, this rejected stone which becomes the cornerstone aid which is properly what I am designating

by the o-object.

精神分析师必须构想他所处理的内容特质，当着是生命实存的渣滓，这个被抛弃的渣滓成为基石的支撑。

这确实就是我指明的小客体。

And that it is a product - I am saying, product - of the operation of language, in the sense in which the

term product is required in our discourse by the raising, since Aristotle, of the dimension of ergon,

exactly, of work.

这是一个产物。我是说语言运作的产物。自从亚里斯多德以来，产物这个术语，在我们的真理论述里，被提

升到作品的向度。

It is a matter of re-thinking logic starting from this small o. Since this small o - though I have named it, I

did not invent it - is properly what has fallen into the hands of analysts, starting from the experience they

have gone through in what is involved in the sexual thing. Everyone knows what I mean and, what is

more, they talk only of that. Since analysis, this small o, is yourselves! I am saying, each one of you, in

your essential kernel. It puts you back on your feet, as they say, it puts you back again bin your feet of

desire, from the delusion about the celestial sphere, of the subject of knowledge.

我们重新思考逻辑，要从这个小客体开始。因为这个小客体（虽然是我命的名字，但並不是憑空杜撰）恰

1
巧让精神分析师运用自如，从跟性爱有关事件，他们所经历的经验开始。每个人都知道我指的是什麽。而且，

他们只是嘴巴说说而已。自从有精神分析学，这个小客体就是你自己！我是说，你们每有个人，在你们生

命的基本核心。如人们所说，这个小客体让你重新站立起来。它让你们欲望的脚站立起来，从天国的幻想，

从具有知识的生命主体那里。

This having been said, it explains, and it is the only valid explanation, why, as metaphorical reasons. For

the small o is the metaphorical child of the One and the Other, in so far as it is born as a piece of refuse

from inaugural repetition, which, in order to be repetition, requires this relation of the One to the Other, a

repetition from which there is born the subject.

这已经被说过了，小客体会解释，而且是唯一有效的解释为什麽，它作为比喻的理由。因为这个小客体是

这个「一」跟「大它者」的比喻的小孩，它出生於生命初始重复的渣滓。为了要成为重复，它要求这个「一」跟

大它者的关系，生命的主体就是从那个重复中诞生。

The real reason for the reference to the child in psychoanalysis is not therefore in any case along the

grain of the C.I., the promised prize of becoming a happy swine which seems to Mr Erik Eriksoni to be a

sufficient motive for his cogitations and his labours. But, simply this problematic essence, the o-object

whose exercises stupefy us, naturally, not just anywhere at all: in the phantasies, very amply put into

effect, of the child! That it is at their level that one sees the operations and the paths best opened out:

but it is necessary for that to receive confidences which are not within the reach of the child

psychologist.

真正的理由在精神分析学提到小孩，因此绝对不是改良的产物，快乐无憂的期望中的快乐品种，它提供足

够的动机，让精神分析师艾瑞克森穷其畢生之力鑽研。但是就是这个问题重重的本质，这个小客体的运作

让我们目瞪口呆，当然不仅在到处可见，而且在小孩的幻见当中，也还是耀武扬威！就在它们的层次，我

们看到小客体的运作及途径展开。但是它们的洋洋自得，却不是小孩心理学家所能理解的。

In short, it is this that ensures that the word soul has, not the slightest sexual frolicking of the child - in

his

perversion as they say - the single, the unique and the only worthy presence that should be accorded to

this word, the word soul.

总之，就是这种洋洋自得确定，「灵魂」这个单字，丝毫不沾染一般所说的，小孩对于性的怪诞幻想。代替

的，它拥有独立无二，价值非凡的实存，理应享有「灵魂」这个头衔的尊荣

(4) So then, as I said the last time, the One is simply, in this logic, the coming into play of the operation

of

measurement, of the value to be given to this small o in this operation of language which is going to be,

2
in short - what else is proposed to us? - the attempt to reintegrate this small o into what! Into this

universe of language, as regards which I already posed at the start of this year, what! That it does not

exist! That it does not exist, why?

（第四）我上一次说过，在这个逻辑，这个「一」仅就是这个小客体所被给予的价值，各种测量的运作。总

之，它还会给我们什麽其它的建议，难道不就是，这种语言的运作将企图合併这个小客体进入什麽？进入

这个语言的宇宙？关于这一点，我在今年一开始就已经提出，什麽？它並没有存在！它没有存在，为什麽？

Precisely because of the existence of the little o-object, as effect.

确实就是因为这个小客体的存在，产生的影响。

Therefore, a contradictory and despairing operation, and happily the simple existence of arithmetic,

people have perceived, recently it has to be said, that the universe of discourse does not exist.

因此，这是一个矛盾而令人绝望的运作，幸运的，这个算术的简单存在，人们曾经感觉到，我们必须说，

真理论述的宇宙並没有存在

So then, how do things present themselves at the start of this attempt? What does it mean to write -

since we need this One and because we will be content with it to measure the little o-object - the

following: One plus o equals One over small o?

因此，在这个企图一开始，事情如何呈现它们自己？它打算要书写什麽？既然我们需要这个「一」，因为我

们将满足於这个「一」，为了测量这个小客体，公式如下：一加零，等於这个「一」是小客体的分子。

You may well suspect that once my theory starts to become an object of serious questioning on the part

of logicians, there will be a lot to be said on the introduction here of three signs which are drawn as plus,

equal, and also the bar between the I and the small o.

你们很有理由怀疑，一旦我的理论开始成为逻辑专家的严重置疑的对象，这三个符号的引介，就有很多值

得一提的地方。那就是「加」、「等於」、以及这个作为一的我，跟「小客体」之间的这条「横槓」。

These are tests as regards which it is necessary, provisionally - so that my course does not extend

indefinitely - that you should have confidence that I have done them for myself, only allowing to appear

here the points at the level at which they may be useful to you.

这些都是一些测验，你们应该相信我自己曾经做过这些测验，但是我只撷取对於你们有帮助的几点，这样

我的真理论述才不会没完没了地延伸。

3
It must be remarked, nevertheless, that if - since this comes up all by itself and because really it is more

convenient, (we still have a long enough path to take) - I inscribe here, quite simply, the formula which is

found to overlap what I called the greatest incommensurable or again the golden number, which

designates very properly speaking the following: that of two magnitudes, the relationship o the bigger to

the smaller, of the One to the o on this occasion, is the same as that of their sum to the greater, that if I

operate in this way, it is not in order to get across - too quickly moreover - hypotheses which it would be

a great pity for you to take as decisive, I mean for you to believe too much in thus paradigm, which

simply is intended to make function, for a time, for you, the small o-object, as incommensurable to what

is at stake: its reference to sex. It is under this heading that the One – this sex (and its enigma) - is

charged with overlapping it.

可是，我们必须要说， 假如我单纯铭记的这个公式，（我信手使用这个公式，因为它较为方便，虽然还

有很多内容要探索）被发现跟我所谓的最大的不可测量数，或黄金数重叠，适当地是，它指明以下：有两

个重大的数目的关系，较大的零跟较小的零，在这个场合，较大的O代表生命主体的「一」One，较小的o

代表小客体 small object，相等於是它们数目跟较大数目的关系。假如我以这个方式运作，我的目的不是

要马上要你们接纳这个假设。我的意思是，不要你们太过於相信於这个典范，因为过於拘泥不化地执着，

也是不好的。这个典范被设计来使小客体运作一阵子，岌岌可危的程度是无法测量的，因为它提到性爱。就

在这个标题下，这个「一」具有这个性及其谜团，被赋加跟它重叠。

But nothing indicates, moreover, in the formula one plus small o equals One over small o, that we can

immediately make enter into it the mathematical notion of proportion. As long as we have not expressly

written it, which implies this writing as it is here, for someone who reads it at the level of its usual

mathematics, namely, that it is One plus small o over One equals One over small o. As long as this 1 is

not (5) inscribed, the formula can be considered as much less tight. It indicates nothing other than the

fact that it is from the rapproghement of the done of this small o, that we intend to see there emerging

something else. What? Why not, on this occasion , that the One represents the small o.

而且，作为生命主体的「一」加小客体的零，等於这个「一」是小客体零的分子，这个公式没有一样指示，我

们能够立刻给予它数学的比率观念。只要我们还没有生动地书写它，这意味着这书写的本身，对於以寻常

数学层次阅读它的人，换句话说，作为主体的「一」，加小客体的零，相等於是这个「一」是小客体零的分子。

只要这个「一」没有被铭记，这个公式就能够被认为是比较不那麽严谨。它道道地地指示着这个事实：从这

个小客体已经演算过的良好关系，我们打算看出有某件其它的东西出现。什麽东西？在这个场合，为什麽

这个「一」不能代表这个小客体？

I scarcely ever use my symbolisations at random. And if those here can remember the symbolisations

that I gave of the metaphor, they will recall that after all, when I write the sequence of signifiers, with the

indication that this chain includes underneath a substituted signifier, and that it is from this substitution

4
that it results that the new signifier substitutes for capital S - let us call it S' - because of what it contains

of the signifier for which it is substituted, takes on the value of this something - that I already connoted

as S' (1/s) - takes on the value of the origin of a new signified dimension which belongs to neither one

nor the other of the two signifiers in questions.

我使用我的象征符号，从来就不是任意挑选。假如你们记得我给予比喻的这些象征符号，你们就会回想到，

当我写下意符的系列时，指示着，这个意符索链包括一个代替的意符在底下，从这个代替形成的结果是：

这个新的意符，代替大写字母的S所代表的生命主体。我们姑且称之为「第二主体」，因为它包括它所代替

的这个意符，形成这个某件东西的价值。我已经指明这个某件东西的内涵为「第二主体」。它形成一个新的意

符化的向度的价值，既不属於受到置疑的两个意符中的前者，也不属於后者。

雄伯译

springherohsiung@gmail.com