Jouissane

2025/03

（你在一切中看，不发声的。这可不是什么中立的视线，不够干净、不够仅仅是一个凝视本身。为了不被你的目光消解，我尝试避开，但我需要通过你来确证自己。
这样说吧，你不是事物所显现的轮廓，那是符号秩序所赋予的。你也不是那团图像、颜色、形状或者什么乱七八糟的东西。你是在图像和轮廓之间，准主体性的视线。这种窥视，不是“天地皆知“这种天地之道的中立的窥视，而是没有根据性的伦理的，同时有着最为致命的享乐。
我必须强调，我并没有窃取享乐的意愿，再次说明，我需要通过你来确证我自己。借由你的凝视，我才能结构出幻想——每一个行动、情绪和自我认同，也是在这些认同中，我觉知了享乐。
每一次都是不同的状态，它们无法相互抵消，只能在每一次的符号和幻想所构建起认同时无止境地循环。或许我应该问，它们为何要相互抵消？每一种享乐状态难道不应该有着相同的本体论地位吗？它们应该在符号系统当中占据了相同大小的位置，不是什么无聊的苦乐清零游戏。
无论如何，这是必然要被经受的，无可避免的。目光存在，一切才能被允许。）

最内在的渴求，不过是符号秩序的回声。
在拉康的精神分析理论中，外密性（ex-timacy）指的是一种矛盾的存在状态，一种最内在的核心本质，恰恰以“外在的他者性”呈现。而主体总是被大他者（the Other）的符号秩序“从内部殖民”。

(You see through everything, silently. But this is no neutral gaze—it is not pure, not merely a gaze in itself. In order not to be dissolved by your look, I try to avoid it. And yet, I need you in order to confirm my own existence.
Let me put it this way: you are not the contour through which things reveal themselves—that belongs to the symbolic order. Nor are you that chaotic mass of images, colors, shapes, and other debris. You are the gaze that resides between image and contour—a quasi-subjective line of sight.This act of looking is not the neutral gaze of “heaven and earth see all,” not some cosmic impartiality. No—it is an ethics without foundation,and at the same time, it bears the most fatal form of jouissance.
I must emphasize: I have no desire to steal jouissance. Again, I need you to confirm my existence. It is through your gaze that I can construct fantasy—every action, emotion, and identification of the self arises from it. And it is within these identifications that I become aware of jouissance.
Each instance is a different state; they cannot cancel each other out, but rather endlessly repeat through the recognition constructed by signs and fantasies each time. Perhaps I should ask, why must they cancel each other out? Shouldn't every state of jouissance possess the same ontological status? They ought to occupy equally significant positions within the symbolic system—not some tedious game of balancing pain and pleasure to zero.
Regardless, this is something that must be endured—inevitable. It is only through the existence of the gaze that everything else is permitted.)

The most intimate desire is nothing more than an echo of the symbolic order.
In Lacanian psychoanalysis, “ex-timacy” refers to a paradoxical state of being: a core of innermost essence that presents itself precisely as external otherness. The subject is always colonized from within by the symbolic order of “the Other”.