Presently reading Pierre Klossowski's Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, and help in clarifying the following would be greatly appreciated
The translator's introduction notes
(4) Phantasme (‘phantasm’) and simulacrum (‘simulacrum’) are perhaps the most important terms in Klossowski’s vocabulary. The former comes from the Greek phantasia (appearance, imagination), and was taken up in a more technical sense in psychoanalytic theory; the latter comes from the Latin simulare (to copy, represent, feign), and during the late Roman empire referred to the statues of the gods that lined the entrance to a city. In Klossowski, the term ‘phantasm’ refers to an obsessional image produced instinctively from the life of the impulses. ‘My true themes’, writes Klossowski [xi] of himself, ‘are dictated by one or more obsessional (or “obsidianal”) instincts that seek to express themselves.'20 A ‘simulacrum’, by contrast, is a willed reproduction of a phantasm (in a literary, pictorial, or plastic form) that simulates this invisible agitation of the soul. ‘The simulacrum, in its imitative sense, is the actualization of something in itself incommunicable and nonrepresentable: the phantasm in its obsessional constraint.’21 If Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle is primarily an interpretation of Nietzsche’s physiognomy, it is because it attempts to identify the impulses or powers that exercised their constraint on Nietzsche (notably those associated with his valetudinary states), the phantasms they produced (notably the phantasm of the Eternal Return that Nietzsche experienced at Sils-Maria in August 1881), and the various simulacra Nietzsche created to express them. (p. x-xi)
This if unproblematic, however at p.133 he says
In order to exercise its constraint, the simulacrum must corrospond to the neccesity of the phantasm. If the impulse already 'interprets' something for itself, the phantasm remains unintelligible, below the level of consciousness: it is merely the intellect's ossified incomprehension of a state of life.
I'm finding it hard to reconcile this with the above definition. What does it mean for an impulse itself to be capable of interpretation? The use of quotation marks implies he is using 'interpretation' in a different sense to the other times he employs the term, yet it is not made clear exactly how it differs. To me this amounts to a departure from the assumed relation between impulse, phantasm and simulacrum used prior to this particular passage. The 'life of the impulses' is something I prior to encountering this viewed as being similar to Freud's description of the economy of libidinal/instinctual drives which comprise the id, meaning impulses themselves would enterpret nothing, yet this quote clearly shows this isn't the case, meaning this is not the correct characterisation.
Can anyone shed any light on this, or recommend a secondary source with a clear explanation of Klossowski's conception of these three notions?