Logic of Phantasy 80 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 80
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

Does it not appear that something analogous, which would only be properly here the emergence of the dimension of measure or of proportion, as original meaning, is implied in this moment of interval which, after having written 1 + o = 1/o, completes it with the One which was absent from it even though immanent, and which, because of being distinguished in this second moment, takes on the figure of the function here of the signifier sex as repressed.

这难道不是显得,某件类同的东西在这个间隔的时刻被暗示出来?这个类同的东西就是测量或比率的向度的出现,作为具有原創性的意义。当我们写下1 + o = 1/o 後,这个间隔的时刻用这个「一」完成它,即使就内在性而言,这个「一」並不在这个类同的东西里。在这个间隔的第二个时刻,这个类同的东西被辨认出来,扮演这个性的意符被压抑的功用的角色。

It is in the measure that the relation to the enigmatic One, taken here in its pure conjunction, One plus small o, can, in our symbolism, imply a function of the One as representing the enigma of sex qua repressed, and that this enigma of sex is going to present itself to us as being able to realise the substitution, the metaphor, overlapping with its proportion the small o itself. What does that mean?

就在跟这个谜团一般的「一」的关系,处於纯净的连接,「一」加小客体,在我们的象征意义里,暗示着一种作为生命主体的「一」,代表性被压抑的谜团。这个性的谜团将要呈现它自己,作为能够体现这个代替,这个比喻,跟小客体自身的比率重叠。那是生麽意思?

The One, you are going to object to me, is in no way repressed. Like here, where keeping to an approximate formula, I made a chain of signifiers as regards which it would be necessary that effectively none of them should reproduce this repressed signifier, (this indeed is why I must distinguish the repressed), here does this One of the first line, go against the articulation that I am trying to give you of it?

你们将会抗议说,这个「一」丝毫没有受到压抑。为了跟公式的近似值一致,我做了一系列的意符锁链,但是没有一个意符应该复制这个被压抑的意符(这的确就是为什麽我必须区别这个被压抑的意符)。在此,这第一条线的这个「一」,会跟我正在给予你们的表达相牴触吗?

Surely not, because of the following: the fact is, as you know, (if you have taken the trouble to exercise yourself a little, the tiniest little bit with what I showed you about the use that should be made of the small o with respect to One, namely, having marked its difference and carried out its subtraction from the One), to remark, as I told you, that One minus o is equal to nothing other than to o to the power of two or o squared, to which there succeeds, provided you withdraw this o-squared back to the o, brought in here in the first operation, to which there succeeds an o-cubed, which is reproduced here on o-squared, by the same mode of operation, to obtain here an o-to the fourth power; all the even powers lining up, as I told you, on one side, over against the odd powers on the other, (o-to the fifth power, o-to the seventh power) which are staggered here, and their total realising this sum which amounts to small o. What we (6) then have on the top of this proportion, is nothing other than o + (o-squared+o-cubed+o-to the fourth power) and so on, which begins from o-squared up to infinity, being strictly equal to the big One.

当然不会,因为底下的原因:事实上,你们知道,假如你们费力气去运用一下,我给你们看的这个最小的碎片,关於小客体的使用,跟这「一」的关系,换句话说,它标示它的不同,並且执行它的代替这个「一」)。我告诉过你们,为了说,「一」减零,相等於就是零的二次或零的平方,只要你们将这零的平方撤回到零,在第一次运算后,接续而来的是一个零的三次方,在零的平方上复制,以相同模式的运作,为了得到零的四次方。我告诉过你们,所有偶数的次方排在一边,对抗另外一边的奇数次方(零的五次方,零的七次方),彼此摇摆不定。它们全部体现小客体O的数目。在这个比率的顶端,我们的答案道道地地就是:零加(零的平方、加零的三次方、加零的四次方),等等,它从零的平方一直演算到无穷,结果完全等於这个「大一」。

The result is that you have here a rather good image of what I called in the signifying chain the metonymical effect that for a long time I already illustrated by the sliding in this chain of the small o figure.

结果是,你们得到一个很好的意象,就是我所谓意符的锁链的换喻效果。长久以来,我曾以小客体在意符锁链上的滑动,作为解释。

That is not all. If the measure this given in this operation of writing – for it is a matter of nothing else – is correct, there flows from it, very immediately, that it is enough for us to make this whole block of the One plus small o pass to the function of One for which it is imposed as a substitution, to obtain the following:
that I can very easily offer myself the luxury of, as a way of continuing to amuse you, I mean, not writing the last 1, reproducing at its level the earlier manoeuvre, which allows me to write subsequently: One over o which, if you continue to proceed along the same path, is followed by the formula o/1-o – the which 1 – o being equal to o squared – is nothing other than o (N.B. later corrected by Lacan to 1/o), the final identification which in a way, sanctions the fact that throughout these detours, these detours which are not nothing since it is here that we can learn to make there operate correctly the relations of the small o to sex, brings us back purely and simply to this identity of the small o.

那並没说明一切。假如把人生视为就是一种「书写」,它的运算中所给予的测量是正确的话,那後面跟随而来的就是,我们足够做整体的运算,将「一」加小客体零,传递到「一」的功用,小客体被赋加在那里作为代替,为了得到底下结果:我能够很容易享受一下奢侈,继续取悦你们,不把这个最后的「一」书写下来,而在它的层次,复制早先的策略,这样我能够随后书写:一作为零的分子,假如你继续沿着这条途径演算下去,后面跟随而来是公式:零是一减零的分子。这个一减零,相等於是零的平方,道道地地就是零(附记:后来,拉康改正为零分之一)。这个最后的认同,在某方面,认可这个事实:在这整个的迂迴过程,带我们纯粹就是回到这个小客体的认同。这个迂迴不是没有意义,因为我们在此能够学习如何使小客体跟性的关系,正确地运作。

For those for whom this still remains a little difficult, do not omit the fact that this small o is something that is altogether existent! I have not done it up to the present, but I can write out its value. Everyone knows it, O they not? It is the square root of five mines one over two. And, if you want to write it in figures, if I remember correctly, it is something of the order of 2.236068 (N.B. Corrected later) . I no longer remember very clearly. Here it is exactly 67 and not 68 but subsequently there are 9’s etc. It goes on for a some time. In short, do not hold me to it.

若是还是有人搞不清楚,请你们不要忽略这个事实:小客体是全然存在的某件东西!我一直到现在都没有排除它,但是我能够书写出它的价值。每一个人都知道,不是吗?那就是:五的平方根,减去二分之一。假如你想要用数字书写下来,假如我记得没有错误,那大约是2.236068。我记得不是很清楚,确实的结果是67,而不是68,但是随后还剩9 等等。它可一演算下去。总之,我就不这样做了。

It is a memory of the time … in any case in my time one learnt mathematics like that, one knew a certain quantity of numbers by heart. When I was fifteen years old, I knew the six first page of my logarithmic tables by heart. I will explain to you another time the use of that, but it is quite certain that it would not be one of the less good methods of selection for candidates to the function of psychoanalyst. We have not reached that yet… I have so much trouble bringing in the slightest thing on this delicate subject, (7) that I have not even suggested, up to the present, that this criterion should be used (laughter). It is certainly as good as those that are presently used!

这是当时的记忆。如论如何,在我的时代,我们学习数学就是这个样子。我们背诵某些数目的数量。当我十五岁时,我背诵对数表的前六页。改天我将跟你们解释它的用途,但是可以确定的是,你们若是想要充当精神分析师的功用,这倒不失为一个可以选择的很好的磨练方法。我们还不致以到那个程度。我在处理这个微妙的生命的主体的一些小事情,就已经搞得焦头烂额。所以直到现在,我甚至都没有建议,应该使用这个背诵的标準(笑声)。这跟我们目前所用的方法一样有效。

We will take up again then, in this formula, these moments to designate properly speaking here in the 1+o, the high point of these formulations which best designate what we can call the sexual subject.

我们再继续这个公式。适当地说,在这个一加零指明的那些时刻,这些说明的重要时刻,最能够指明我们所谓的人作为「性的主体」。

If the One designates in its first moment as enigma, the signifying function of sex, it is from the moment that the 1+o comes to the denominator of equality as we see it being developed here, always the same, that there emerges, as you can see, even though I did not write it imprudently, at the upper level, this famous two of the dyad that one cannot write under the form of 2 without having warned that this requires some supplementary remarks, on this occasion, about what is called the associativity of addition. In other words, that I detach the second 1 here in so far as it is in this parenthesis, to group it in the same parenthesis with the other 1 which precedes it, but which has a different function. Now, it is not difficult to notice in these three terms – this 1, this 1 and this small o – the three intervals that are in question here, namely, those that pose the small o as a problem with respect to the two other 1’s.

假如这个「一」在它性的意符化的功用的第一个时刻,指明是谜团,那麽从这个时刻,这个一加零,来充当平等式的分母,我们看到它的演算结果总是相同。在上面的层次那里,会出现这个著名的二的对立,即使我没有轻率地写出。我们若是在二的形式下,书写这个二的对立,必然要先警告,在这个场合,这需要一些补充的注解,关於所谓的加法的联想。换句话说,我将这第二个「一」用括弧隔開,这样它跟前头的另外一个一,虽然它有不同的功用,它们可以在同一括弧里,自成一个团体。现在,在这三个术语里,我们不难注意到,这个一,另外这个一,及这个小客体,这三个间隔,在此受到置疑。换句话说,关於这两个其它的「一」,小客体会形成一个问题。

What can all of this mean? (laughter).

这些能够意味着什麽?(笑声)。

In order to confront the small o with the unit – which is simply to establish the function of measure – well then, one must begin by writing this unit. It is this function that I introduced a long time ago, under the term of unary stroke. “Unary”, I said, because it can happen that I lower my voice. So then, where does one write it, this unary trait which is essential to operate for the measure of the little o-object, because no little o-object has a back. I think it is precisely the usefulness, I think that you have always known it, of what I called the locus of the Other, in so far as it is precisely here represented as summoned by this whole logical approach.

为了用这个单位来面对这个小客体,仅是要建立测量的功用,我们必须開始书写下这个单位。我很久以前介绍过这个功用,以「单一特征」这个术语。我说「单一」,因为我恰巧降低我的音量。那麽,我们要将它书写在哪里?这个「单一特征」,对於这个小客体的测量的运作是很重要的,因为没有一个小客体有背景支持。我认为那确实是它的用途。我认为你们已经知道,我所说的大它者的轨迹,因为它确实是用全部的逻辑的方法,所代表出来的轨迹。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: