偶然地書寫

29 “The fact that the dead father is jouissance presents itself to us as the sign of the impossible itself. And in this way we rediscover here the terms that are those I define as fixing the category of the real, insofar as, in what I articulate, it is radically distinguished from the symbolic and the imaginary – the real is the impossible. Not in the name of a simple obstacle we hit our heads up against, but in the name of the logical obstacle of what, in the symbolic declares itself to be impossible. This is where the real emerges from.” (S17, 123)

30 “This is, namely, whether everything can be reduced to pure logic, namely, to a discourse that is sustained by a well-determined structure. Is there not an absolutely essential element that remains, whatever we do to insert it into this structure, to reduce it, that all the same

和痛快之能中間出現的隔閡一般，僅借助邏輯系統恐怕無法確實地認識有 remains as a final kernel and that is called intuition.” (S18, VI-5)

31 “The necessary is introduced to us by the ‘doesn’t stop.’ The ‘doesn’t stop’ of the necessary is the ‘doesn’t stop being written.’ Analysis of the reference to the phallus apparently leads us to this necessity. The ‘doesn’t stop not being written,’ on the contrary, is the impossible, as I define it on the basis of the fact that it cannot in any case be written, and it is with this that I characterize the sexual relationship – the sexual relationship doesn’t stop not being written.”

(S20, 94)

其實「這裡要談包藏著有性關係不可能性的那一點，有性的痛快之能它就

32 “Nevertheless, let us examine more closely what inspires in us the idea that, in the jouissance of bodies, sexual jouissance has the priviledge of being specified by an impasse. … Named here is the point that covers the impossibility of the sexual relatiosnhip as such. Jouissance, qua sexual, is phallic – in other words, it is not related to the Other as such.”

(S20, 9)

零碎的部分進行了不可能有性關係的「對象化」，能量這項概念也必須伴 隨原則在那裡的建立而依附於它所主導的意符網路結構之上，否則是無法 被測知的。他講過「意符是痛快之能的起因，沒有意符的話要怎麼接近身 體的部分？又該如何環繞作為痛快之能質料因（material cause）的東西呢」

（S20, 24）？

其實，這也就意味陽性的痛快之能並非是超越陽性意符式功用的原始 獨立動能本身。當意符式主體跟死亡父親之間的距離被拉開而構成約束前 者的現實規範，單為後者所享有的陽性痛快之能才會連帶地以不可能性的 外表出現。有性關係不可能直接建立好一事，以及其一體化基礎陽性意符 的地位普遍絕對化，在此同步進行得特別巧妙。一方面，將死亡父親自我 理想化即是保障主體在現實秩序確立的要求下免於痛快之能威脅，他有空 間來凝聚被定義的愛戀對象而遵循生命安穩去提升成長的持續發展方 向。這個由去勢功用限制住的主體有性化區分，從另一方面不只提供他背 景來宣稱自我是主動地欲望那已經不可能的有性關係，主體更接受了一旦 沿著此種愛欲關係運動的軌跡，最終有可能迂迴去釋放引起欲望那股危險 而強大的力量並且不至於遭到它吞噬。實際上，這往往是幻想的核心，亦 相當於說主體設定像神話式雙親關係般的那一幕理想場景，成為足堪判斷 如何認識處理好享用陽性痛快之能這項操作的某個純粹狀態。而如此夢幻 的完善條件與現實世界之間存在的種種差異，便導致一個人可能把對象意 義生產中既有技術細節的掌握大量混合累積，類似他知覺經驗自我影像那 樣當作是有效的準備方法來「逼近」關係原則嚴格一致化這個他「暫時」

擱置而不放棄的目的。也可以講，現在豈不是又呼應到了現實原則對快樂 原則的調整？從話語架構下延遲理想讓主體維持自我在現實可銘刻的事 物範圍之內，所以受限於此處的任何行為背後，都不會找不出用意或理由。

然而這一種實現陽性意符式功用的逐步嘗試，基本上無異於將即刻遭

「愛戀也是對存在的外表（semblance of being）而言，如果大他者像之前 所說，只能把自身貼近作為欲望起因之小對象a時才會被碰觸」（S20, 92）

35。於此，某種邊界存在的概念模型被小對象所體現，透過它要推測大他 者那就本質性序位關係之空無進行扭轉的變化，而又不從有性觀點對痛快 之能產生限定的認知，已成了一場不可能整合調解的僵局。但談論到存在

33 “Precisely, it originates from this more than mythical original father, from this summons as such to pure enjoyment, namely, also to non-castration. And what does this father say in effect, at the dissolution of the Oedipus complex? He says what the superego says. What the superego says – it is not for nothing that I have never really tackled it yet – what ther superego says is : ‘Enjoy!’” (S18, X-19)

34 “This botching is the only way of realizing that relationship if, as I posit, there’s no such thing as a sexual relationship.” (S20, 58)

35 “Love itself, as I stressed last time, is addressed to the semblance. And if it is true that the Other is only reached if it attaches itself, as I said last time, to a, the cause of desire, then love is also addressed to the semblance of being.” (S20, 92)

的外表，其中之重點當屬這一外表和實質的存在卻非彼此截然地相反並 立，因為「召喚本質（nature）的話語沒有不自本質內就是外表來開始的」

（S18, I-9）。那可暫借欺眼畫法（trompe l'oeil）為輔助理解之舉例，若去 繪製一襲生動的遮罩在畫面上，則凡是相信畫作「本身」需要等待人揭露 的觀賞者便會想像他未見之處還存在著一些什麼。不過，有效引發主體回 應的畢竟是存在之外表，它意味書寫運動出現了條件的邊界。任何現實「意 義建立在外表之上，而標記意義是有性的要藉由分析式話語來解釋其邊界 極限」（S20, 79）。這個地方在前文對陽性意符的各項討論中已經屢有涉 及，那回到表意連結去看「化身為主導意符S^Ⅰ而支撐人們的陽性意符，它 乃是所有意符裡沒有意旨並代表著意義失敗的這一個」（S20, 80）。

假使尚有另一無條件基礎在陽性意符之後，依賴陽性意符將大他者設 想成滿足有性關係之危險母體的作法便顯得有些無謂。偏偏實際上，大他 者不可能確知意義的存在卻正好跟陽性意符糾纏掛勾得耐人尋思，可以說

「她不因不盡然在陽性意符式功用下就似乎不在那裡，不是根本不在而是 完整都在，更多了某項事物」，「有某種痛快之能，屬於既不存在也不表意 的這個『她』」（S20, 74）³⁶。拉岡提供線索給我們在此處來理解xx一式，

所謂要與陽性意符功用相對比的東西不可能會有超脫前者之空間讓她存 在，那麼痛快之能是如何地存在呢？他曾講「存在乃身體的痛快之能

（jouissance of the body），亦即為無關有性的」（S20, 6）。而書寫陽性意符 和無關有性之大他者本身的有性關係，難道不是去樹立起痛快之能存在的 外表邊界嗎？轉折時刻在不停地未被書寫跟不停地被書寫之間靈光一 閃，對於這樣的理論位置，是否還有其他適當的描述？

36 “It’s not because she is not-wholly in the phallic function that she is not there at all. She is not not at all there. She is there in full. But there is something more. … There is a jouissance that is hers, that belongs to that ‘she’ that doesn’t exist and doesn’t signify anything.” (S20, 74)

「無意識（the unconscious）像語言一樣被結構，那是因為語言首先並

37 “If I have said that language is what the unconscious is structured like, that is because language, first of all, doesn’t exist. Language is what we try to know concerning the function of llanguage. ... Language is, no doubt, made up of llanguage. It is knowledge’s harebrained lucubration about llanguage. But the unconscious is knowledge, a knowing how to do things with llanguage.” (S20, 138-139)

38 “Let me remind you what I base this term ‘contingency’ on. The phallus – as analysis takes it up as the pivotal or extreme point of what is enunciated as the cause of desire – analytic experience stops not writing it. It is in this ‘stops not being written’ that resides the apex of what I called contingency. …It is as a mode of the contingent that the phallic function stops not being written. What submits the sexual relationship to being, for speaking beings, but the regime of the encounter is tantamount to contingency.” (S20, 94)

39 “At the level of this not-everything, only the Other doesn’t know. It is the Other who constitutes the not-everything, precisely in that the Other is the part of the not-at-all-knowledgeable in the not-everything.” (S20, 98)

以大他者本身無關有性的痛快之能，與其說那是刻意去就限制和約束率然 地進行突破，它會更靠近於對偶發重置陽性意符較謹慎的開放設想，而且 也這麼來延伸了陽性痛快之能的議題。所謂陰性痛快之能（feminine jouissance）的稱呼，便是在跟隨那無關有性的狀態，它不必訴諸對立的生 理性別角色形象。

倘使再以性分化公式去看，拉岡點出「不存在是由人聲明不可能而被 認定，亦即指她從實質承擔起自己和去勢之間的關係，是這給了不盡然x 意義。不盡然代表並非不可能，她不是不可能會知道陽性意符式功用」（S19, III-12）⁴⁰。藉此，xx與xx二式之間緊密的連繫才能有所呈現，而其 中大他者她跟陽性意符在書寫運作裡的互動也受到更細緻的注意。易言 之，斷然否定主導原則要來談心理過程例外部分的存在，結果僅只是一場 不可能的幻想。但功用邊界的建立實際上本身正攜帶著大他者的質地，那 讓調控組織的陽性意符不脫一種偶然的痕跡，這時對於痛快之能不盡然是 全得就有性角度去處理而將其封閉住。

陰性偶然的運動假使被當作是另一種反對陽性理論位置的可能，則拉 岡構築邏輯運算的心思恐怕令人不解，畢竟去設想邊界區分其內外雙方並 不勞如此大費周章。以身體和有性的連續關係來看，有性難道不是身體組 織特定化的一面嗎？而有性或陽性痛快之能的不可能性，乃是隨著要為偶 然交會的那些片段建立起連接之必須性這一企圖才出現，它在身體或陰性

40 “As I told you, the there does not exist is affirmed from a statement, a statement of the man, the impossible, namely, that it is from the Real that the woman takes on her relationship to castration. And this is what gives us the sense of x, namely, of the not-all. The not-all means, as it was earlier in the left-hand column, means not impossible, it is not impossible that the woman should know the phallic function. What is the not impossible? It has a name that the Aristotelian tetrad suggests, but arranged differently here, just as the necessary was opposed to the possible, to the impossible it is the contingent.” (S19, III-12)

痛快之能那考慮更為「廣泛」的過程中可說是優先被察覺的「典型」。究 其原因，豈非人們太想知道快樂的邊界在何處之故？