sinthome 32

sinthome 32

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病征

18.11.75 VII-142
(126) We rediscover there, in short, something for which I put forward that concerning what I called by the name of the woman: she is not-all (pas-toute). She is not-all, means that women constitute only one set. In effect, with time, we have come to dissociate the idea of All from the idea of a set. I mean that we have arrived at the thought of the fact that a certain number of objects can be supported by small letters.

总之,我们在那里重新发现某件东西,我提出那个东西,关于我所谓的以女人之名:女人并非全部。女人并非全部的意思是,女人仅是组成一个集合。事实上,随着时间过去,我们渐渐会将「全部」的观念跟一个「集合」的观念分开。我的意思是,我们已经会想到这个事实: 某些的客体能够用小的字母支持。

And then the idea of All is dissociated, namely, that the circle that is supposed in a quite fragile representation to gather them together, the circle is outside the objects a, b, c, etc (VIII-7).

然后,「全部」的这个观念会被分离。换句话说,被认为的这个圆圈,以一个相当脆弱的符号再现,为了将它们集合在一块,这个圆圈是在啊a、b、c、等客体之外。

Specifying that the woman is not-all, implies an asymmetry, an asymmetry between an object that one might call capital A – and it is a matter of knowing what it is – and a set with one element. The two, if there is a couple, being reunited by being contained in a circle which by this fact is found to be distinct (VIII-8). This is usually expressed in the following form, one uses brackets that are written as follows {A{B}}. On the one hand there is an element and on the other hand a set with one element. As you see, I did something stupid.

指明女人并非全部,暗示着一种不均称,处于一个我们所谓的大写字母A之间的客体,与只有一个要素的集合之间的不均称。这个我们所谓的大写字母A的客体的本质是什么,则有待探讨。假如有配对存在,这两个会被重新结合起来,由于被包含在一个圆圈里。根据这个事实,它被发现是不同的。这通常用以下的形式表达。我们使用括弧,被书写如下:{A{B}}. 在一方面,有一个要素,在另一方面,有一个要素的集合。你们看出,我有点弄巧成拙。

So then I must admit the following to you, which is that after having assented to what Soury and Thomé had articulated for me, namely, namely that a Borromean chain of three shows itself as supporting two different objects, on condition that the three rings
that constitute the aforesaid chain are coloured and orientated; the two being required.

因此,我必须跟你们承认以下。在我同意邵瑞与汤玫曾经跟我表达的,换句话说,由三个环圈组成的一个博洛米恩环结的锁链,显示他自己,作为支持两个不同的客体,只要组成前述的锁链的这三个环圈,被染上颜色及确定方向。这两个是被要求的。

What distinguishes the two objects in question in a second phase, namely, after having assented to what they said, but superficially in a way, I found myself in a rather (127) disagreeable position of having imagined that simply to colour them was enough to distinguish two objects. Because I had not, I had consented quite superficially to what they had brought me the affirmation of.

区别这两个受到质疑的客体,在第二个部分,换句话说,在我已经同意他们所说的,但是外表上,用某种的方式,我发现我自己处于相当不和谐的立场,因为我曾想象,仅是跟它们染上颜色,就足够区别这两个客体。因为我没有区别,我曾经在外表上同意他们所带给我的这个肯定。

18.11.75 VII-143
In effect, it seems to be sensed that if we colour in red one of these three rings, this is all the same not the same object if we colour this one in green and this one in blue, or if we do the opposite
(VIII-9).

事实上,我似乎觉得,假如我们用红色染色这三个环圈的其中一个,这仍然不是相同的客体,假如我们用绿色替这个染上颜色,用蓝色染上这个,或倒过来染色。

It is nevertheless the same object if we turn the sphere inside out. We will very easily obtain, I am going, good God, to draw it rapidly for you, we will obtain very easily a contrary layout.

Namely, that in order to start from what is there, from what is there to represent it thus (VIII-10), where, once again, it is turned inside out in the following way.

可是,我们若是将球形由内部向外翻转,它仍然是相同的东西。我们将会很容易获得,我的天,我将要快速地跟你们画出来。我们很容易就获得一个相反的构图。

(128) It is in effect, if we do not consider this as rigid, quite plausible to make of the red ring the following presentation. If here it is also more that plausible, we make the ring (anneau) so as to bring it there where it is quite obvious that it can be, you get
the following transformation (VIII-11).

事实上,假如我们不将这个认为是僵化,它相当合理地将红色的环圈,解释为以下的呈现。假如在此它更加地合理,我们制作这个环圈,为了带它来那里。这是相当显而易见的,你们很可能获得以下的转变。

And starting from the following transformation, it is highly plausible to make this ring slip in such a way that what it is a matter of obtaining, namely, that the green ring should be internal, instead of it being the blue ring, should be inside the red ring.
And that on the contrary, the blue ring should be outside, this can be obtained (VIII-12).

从以下的转变开始,可非常合理地让这个环圈以这种方式滑溜,问题是如何获得,也就是说,绿色的环圈应该是在内部,代替它的是蓝色的环圈,应该在红色的环圈里面。相反的,蓝色的环圈应该在外部,这是可以获得的。

These things, I can after all say it, are not so easy to demonstrate. The proof is that what is immediate by simply thinking that the three rings can be turned inside out with respect to one another, what is immediate and obtained by manipulation, is that not so, obtained as easily as that.

这些东西并不是那么容易证明,就算我能够说它。证据是,属于当下的东西,仅是凭借认为,这三个环圈能够从内部向外互相翻转,这种操控的当下所获得的东西,并不是那样容易可获得。

The proof is that the aforesaid Soury and Thomé, in short, who very rightly represented this manipulation for me, only did it by getting a little entangled. I
tried to represent for you there how this transformation can effectively be said to operate. Good.

证据是,前述的邵瑞及汤玫,总之,对于我而言,他们很有理由代表这种操控。只是他们这样操控时,难免会有一点陷入纠缠。我尝试跟你们呈现出,这个转变据说是如何有效地运作。呵呵。

In short, what stops us? Stops us in the immediacy which is another sort of obviousness (evidence), as I might say, this (129) obviousness that, as regards the Real, I make a joke that I support by hollowing out (l’évidement). What resists this
obviousness-hollowing out, is the nodal appearance produced by what I will call the chain knot (chaîn-noeud), by equivocating on the chain and the knot. This nodal appearance, this form of knot, as I might say, is what gives assurance to the Real.

总之,是什么阻挡我们?在当下属于另外一种显而易见时,阻挡我们。我不妨说,这个显而易见,关于这个实在界,我开个我用掏空方式支持的「玩笑」。所抗拒这种显而易见的掏空,就是我所谓的锁链的环结,产生的的这个节点的外表,由于它们在这个锁链及环结上刻意地模糊。这个节点的外表,这个环结的形式,我不妨说,就是给予实在界保证的东西。

And I would say on this occasion that it is then a fallacy, since I spoke about
appearance, it is a fallacy which bears witness to what the Real is.

在这个场合,我不妨说,这是一个错误。因为我谈论到外表。这是一个错误见证到实在界是什么。

There is a difference between the pseudo-obviousness, because in my stupidity I first held as obvious that there could be two objects by simply colouring the circles, what is meant by the fact that in short I demonstrated for you this series of artifices? This is where the difference between showing and demonstrating is shown.

在虚假与显而易见之间,有一个差异,因为由于愚昧,我起初认为显而易见的是: 仅是将这些球形染上颜色,就会有两样东西。总之,我跟你们证明的这一系列的闪避策略,这个事实是什么?这就是显示跟证明之间的差异被显现出来的地方。

There is, in a way, an idea of downfall (déchéance) in the demonstrating with respect to the showing.

在某方面,会有一个堕落,当我们证明这种显示时。

There is a choice of showing. All the blah-blah starting from the obvious only
produces the hollowing out on condition of doing it significantly.

有一个显示的选择。从这个显而易开始的一切无聊的话,仅是产生这个掏空,只要我们认真地从事它。

The more geometrico which was for a long time the ideal support of proof, is based on the fallacy of a formal obviousness. And this is altogether of a kind to remind us that geometrically a line is only the intersection of two surfaces, two surfaces which are themselves cut out of a solid. But a different kind of support is provided by the ring (anneau), the circle, whatever it may be, on condition that it is supple. It is a different geometry which is founded on the chain.

史宾诺莎的「几何式哲学」,长久以来就是证据的理想的支持。它以正式的显而易见的错误作为基础。这完全是等同于在提醒我们,从几何图形而言,一条线仅是两个表面的交会,两个表面本身从一个固体切割。但是一种不同的支持,由这个环结,这个圆圈供应,不管它是什么,只要它是柔软的。这是一种不同的几何学,以这个锁链作为基础。

雄伯说:
何谓史宾诺莎几何式哲学?史宾诺莎从犹太教会被开除,单独过他的一生,跟开明的新教徒。他尝试改进笛卡尔哲学,使用数学的公理的哲学思想,而成为一贯的系统(使用证明开始定义,公理,假设,定理)。

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: