Logic of Phantasy 68

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:

The Logic of Fantasy 16
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 16: Wednesday, April 12, 1967

To introduce it, we start from the idea, that in the sexual act there is no question at all that this small o,

in which we indicate this something which is in a way the substance of the subject ... (if you understand

this substance, in the sense that Aristotle designated it in the ousia, namely - which is forgotten - the fact

is that what specifies it is precisely the following: that it cannot in any way be attributed to any subject,

the subject being understood as upokeimenon). This little o-object, in so far as it serves us as a module

to question the one who is supported by it, does not have to search for its complement in the dyad -

what it lacks in order to be two - which would be very desirable. The fact is that the solution to this

relation, thanks to which the two can be established, depends entirely on what is going to happen in the

reference of the small o, the golden number, to the One in so far as it generates this lack, which is

inscribed here from a simple effect of continuation (report) and, at the same time, of difference, under a

form of one minus o which, by calculation (very simple calculation that I already wrote on this board so

that I can ask you to find it yourselves) is formulated by o-squared.

为了介绍它，我们从这个观念开始。在性的行动中，无可置疑地，这个小客体，我们用来指示某件像是生

命主体的「物质」，（假如你了解这个物质，以亚里斯多德指明的意义为「实存」，换句话说，它被遗忘的的

明确内涵如下：它无法被归属於任何的生命主体，被了解为「基质」的生命主体实存）。这个小客体，替我

们充当一个模组，置疑它所支撑的生命主体，所以它並不需要在这个男女配对的关系寻找它的互补，虽然

为了成为两人一对，它必须寻找它欠缺的另一半，互补是人人所渴望的。事实上，这个配对关系的解决，

由于它，两人一对才能够被建立，完全依靠这个小客体，这个黄金数目，跟这个「一」的关系指标，将会发

生怎样的情形而定，因为它会产生这个欠缺。这个欠缺被铭记在这里，由於单纯的传宗接代的影响，同时

也是差異的影响，在「一减零」的形式下，根据零的平方所开展的运算（非常简单的运算，我已经书写在黑

1
板上，这样我才能要求你们自己找到答案）。

I am only recalling it here, in order to put - at the start of what I want to introduce, about what it is

essential to articulate, for you, as I said earlier - at the beginning, at the start of our science, namely,

what necessarily, although paradoxically, introduces us to this sexual knot, in which there flees and

makes off from us the act which, for the moment, constitutes our question. The link of this small o, in so

far as here you see it represents, darstellt, supports and makes present first of all the subject himself.

That this is the same as is going to appear in the exchange, whose formula we are now going to show

as being able to make use of this object that we touch in the dialectic of the treatment, under the name

of partial object.

我现在只是回顾一下，在我想要介绍的开头，为了将事关重要的表达，我早先说过的，摆置在我们科学的

开始，换句话说，摆在必须是性的环结起头的地方，虽然听起来有点矛盾。在那里，这个性的行动会逃离，

並摆脱我们。这个性的行动暂时就构成我们的问题所在。你们在这里看到的这个小客体的连接，它代表，支

持，並且首先使生命主体的自身显现出来。这跟交易中出现的情形一样。我们将会将交易呈现当着是能够使

用这个客体，我们在精神分析治疗的辩证法中，碰触到客体，以部分客体的名义。

The relation then of these two aspects of the function small o, with this index, this form of object, which

is at the principle of castration.

小客体功用的这两方面的关系，跟这个索引，这个客体的形式，构成了阉割的原理。

I will not close this cycle today. That is why I want to introduce it by two formulae responding to a sort of

problem that we pose a priori. What value should be given to this little o-object - if it is indeed there as

having to represent, in the sexual dyad, the (8) difference - for it to produce two results between which

there is suspended our question today?

今天，我将不会封闭这个循环。那就是为什麽我要用两个公式介绍它，以回应一种我们提出作为「由结果推

断原因」的问题。假如在性的配对中，小客体必须代表男女的差異，这样它才能产生两个结果，我们今天的

问题就悬置在这两个结果之间，那什麽价值应该给予这个小客体呢？

A question that can only be tackled along the path that I am leading you , in so far as it is the logical

path. I mean the Path of logic. The dyad and its uncertainties is what logic itself develops from the

beginning, if one knows how to follow its trace.

只有沿着我正在引导你们的这条途径，这个问题才能够被克服，因为它是逻辑的途径，我指的是「逻辑之

道」。这个男女配对及其不稳定性，是逻辑本身从开头就发展，假如我们知道如何去追踪它的痕迹。

2
I cannot retrace for you here the history of logic, but let it be enough for me to evoke here, at the dawn

of the Aristotelian Organon, which is something quite different to simple formalism, if you know how to

plumb it. At the first point of the logic of the predicate, there is established the opposition between

contraries and contradictories.

我不可能替你们重新追踪逻辑的历史，但是让我在这里点到为止。在亚里斯多德的「逻辑学」，那是完全不

同於形名主义的东西，假如你们知道如何去探索它。在述词的逻辑的第一阶段，就存在着相反与矛盾的对

立。

We have made, as you know, a good deal of progress since, but this is not a reason for not interesting

ourselves in what constitutes the importance and the status of their entry into history.

你们知道，我们在逻辑方面已经有很大的进展，但这不是我们不再感到興趣的理由，对於是什麽构成它们

在历史上的重要性及地位。

It is moreover not ... (I am saying it also in parenthesis, for those who sometimes open books on logic)

to prevent us - when we take up line by line what Aristotle stated at the same time, not even in the

margin - introducing what, for example, Lukasiewicz has since completed. I am saying this, because in

the excellent book of the two Kneale's, moreover, I was struck by a protestation, like that, which arose in

turning a page. Because to say what Aristotle said, Mr. Lukasiewicz, for example, is lead to distinguish

what belongs to the principle of contradiction from the identity principle, and from the principle of

bivalence! There you are.

而且，这也不应该阻止我们（我现在只是以它作为旁证，以免逻辑的行家皺眉头），当我们逐行地追踪亚

里斯多德当时的陈述，而不仅是在边缘旁敲侧击。例如，让我们介绍一下鲁卡西维兹的成就。我现在会这样

说，是因为在那两本科尼尔的逻辑争论里，我对於一个声明印象深刻，这个声明出现在翻转一页的时候。

为了要配合亚里斯多德所说的内容，鲁卡西维兹设法区别属于矛盾原理的东西，跟认同原理的不同，以及

跟二原子价的原理的不同！问题就出在那里。

The identity principle, is that A is A. You know that it is not clear that A should be A. Luckily, Aristotle

does not say it, but that it should be pointed out is all the same interesting!

认同原理就是：甲就是甲。你们知道，甲应该就是甲，並不是那麽天经地义。幸运地，亚里斯多德並没有这

样说。但是我们应该指出，这仍然是很有趣的事。

Secondly, that a thing can be at once, at the same time, A and not A, is again something quite different!

As regards the principle of bivalence, namely, that a thing ought to be either true or false, this is a third

thing again!

3
其次，一件事情有时会同时是「甲」，也同时是「非甲」。这是完全不同的状况。关于二原子价的原理，换句话

说，一件事情应该是真实的，要不然就是虚假。这又是有第三件事在里面。

I find that to point it out rather illuminates Aristotle. And to point out that Aristotle surely never thought of

all these niceties, has nothing to do with the question! For it is precisely what allows its importance to be

given to what I am going to start again from now, namely, this crude business of contraries. First of all, in

so far as, for us - I mean as regards what is not in Aristotle, but which is already indicated in my

previous teaching - we will designate it by the not without (pas sans). (This will be of use of us later. Do

not worry! Allow me to lead you a little bit.)

我发现，将它指出来，有助於明白亚里斯多德。我指出，亚里斯多德的确没有想到这些细微末节，跟这个

问题没有关系！因为它确实强调我目前正要开始讲的东西，换句话说，相反矛盾的輪廓。首先，就我们而

言，我的意思是亚里斯多德並没有提到，但是在我先前的教导中，已经指明出来。我们将指明它为「不是没

有」。（我们以后会用到。不要憂虑！让我引导你们前进。）

Contraries and this is what gives rise to the logical question of whether, yes or no, the particular

proposition implies existence. This has always shocked people enormously. In Aristotle it incontestably

implies it. It is even on this that his logic depends. It is curious that the universal proposition does not

imply it!

「相反矛盾律」产生是或不是这个特别的假设，是否意味着生命主体的实存与否，这个逻辑的问题。人们对

於这个问题总是会大吃一惊。在亚里斯多德，无可置疑的，前后两者息息相关。他的逻辑甚至就是依靠这个。

耐人寻味的是，它並没有应用到举世皆準的假设。

I can say, "every centaur has six limbs". It is absolutely true! Except there are no (9) centaurs. It is a

universal proposition. But if I say, (in Aristotle!): "there are centaurs who have lost one", this implies that

centaurs exist, for Aristotle. I am trying to reconstruct a logic that is a little less lame as regards

centaurs! But this does not interest us for the moment.

我能够说：「每隻半牛半马的动物有六隻脚」。那是绝对真实的！除了世界上並没有半牛半马的动物。这是一

个举世皆準的假设。但是假如我说（用亚里斯多德的话说）：「有些半牛半马的动物，失去一隻脚」，这句

陈述，就业里斯多德而言，意味着，半牛半马的动物存在於世界上。我正在设法重新建构一个比较难於自

圆其说的逻辑，关于半牛半马的动物！但是目前我们感到興趣的地方，不是在这里。

Simply there is no male without a female. This is of the order of the real. This has nothing to do with

logic. At least in our day.

4
我仅举个例子：有男人的地方，就有女人。这是真实界的秩序。这个跟逻辑没有丝毫关系。至少在我们的时

代，是没有关系。

And then, there is the contradictory, which means the following: if something is male, then it is not non-

male, nothing else.

然后，这个「矛盾律」就出现了。它意味着下面的事实：假如某人是男性，那他就不会是「非男性」，没有别

的。

It is matter of finding our way in these two distinct formulae. The second is of the symbolic order; it is a

symbolic convention, which has a name, precisely, the excluded third.

在这两个清楚的公式中，我们要找到我们的途径。第二条途径是属於符号的秩序，那是一个符号的惯例。它

有一个明确的名称「排除第三者」。

雄伯译

springherohsiung@gmail.com