Archive for March, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 23

March 25, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 23
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 5: Wednesday 13 December 1961

Monas esti kathen hekaston ton outon
Arithmos de to ek monadon synkeimenon plethos
Euclid – Elements 4 VII.

单子的那个数字,就它本身而言,实实在在就是这种多重性。
这种多重性确实是从各种单元的介绍产生。
欧克里德:「要素」第七册,第四章。

This sentence is a sentence borrowed from the beginning of the seventh book of Euclid’s Elements and appeared to me, taking everything into consideration, the best one I found to express, on the mathematical plane, this function to which I wished to
draw your attention the last time, of the 1 in our problem.

这个句子是从欧克里德的「要素」的第七册的开始借用过来。我觉,仔细考虑之下,我发现最佳的句子,在数学的层次,用来表达这个功用,上次我希望吸引你们注意的功用,在我们的问题里,这个「一」的功用。

It is not that I had to search for it, that I had trouble finding among the mathematicians something which referred to it: the mathematicians, at least some of them, those who at every epoch have been in the forefront of the exploitation of their field, have concerned themselves a lot with the status of the unit (1’unite), but they are far from all having arrived at equally satisfying formulae; it even seems that, for some of them, in their definitions it went right in the opposite direction to the appropriate one.

这并不是因为我必须寻找它,我遭遇麻烦要在数学家里找到提到它的某件东西。至少,有一些,在每个时代曾经处在他们的领域的探索的前端。他们非常关心这个「一」的单位的地位。但是他们并没有全部到达同样令人满意的公式。甚至似乎,对于他们一些人而言,在他们的定义,它直接朝向跟这个适当的方向相反的方向。

In any case, I am not unhappy to think that someone like Euclid who all the same in the matter of mathematics cannot be considered otherwise than as from the right stock, should give this formula, which is precisely all the more remarkable because
it is articulated by a geometer, that what the unit is – because (2) this is the meaning of the word monas: it is the unit in the precise sense in which I tried to designate it for you the last time under the designation of what I called, I will come back again on the reason why I called it that: the unary trait; the unary trait in so far as it is the support as such of difference, this indeed is the meaning that monas has here. It cannot have a different one, as the rest of the text is going to show you.

无论如何,我并不是不高興想到,某位像欧克里德这样的人,在数学的问题是,他仍然无法被认为不是从适当的储存资料开始。他应该给予这个确实是更加杰出的公式,因为它是由一位几何学家表达。这个单位的本质是,因为这是「单子」这个字词的意义:上一次,我以所谓的「单一特征」指明,尝试跟你们指明它的确实是这个意义的单位,我回头还会再谈论它,因为我称它为「单一特征」。这个「单一特征」是差异的支持本身。这确实就是「单子」在此拥有的意义。它无法拥有一个不同的意义,如同其余的文本将会跟你们显示。

Monas, namely this unit in the sense of the unary trait which I indicate here to you as cross-checking with, as highlighting in its function what we managed last year in the field of our experience to locate in the very text of Freud as the einziger Zug, that through which every being is said to be a One, with the ambiguity that is brought by this en, the neuter of eis which means One in Greek, being precisely what can be employed in Greek as in French to designate the function of unity in so far as it
is this factor of consistency through which something is distinguished from what surrounds it, makes a whole, a One in the unitary sense of the function; therefore it is through the mediation of unity that each one of these beings comes to be called One.

单子,换句话说,单一特征的这个单位,我在此跟你们指示,作为交叉比对,作为在它的功用,强调去年我们处理的东西,在我们精神分析的领域,在弗洛伊德的文本,找到作为这个「单一特征」。通过这个「单一特征」每个生命实存据说是一个「一」,具有这个「一个en」所带来的这个模糊暧昧:「eis」的中立,在希腊文的意思是「一」。在希腊文,它确实是能够被运用的东西,如同在法文,它指明统一的这个功用。因为它是一致性的这个因素。通过这个一致性,某件东西被区别出来,跟围绕它,使它成为一个整体的东西不同。它是单一特征的这个功用的一个「一」,因此,通过统一的中介,每一个生命实存渐渐都被称为「一」

The advent, in the statement, of this unity as characteristic of each of the beings is here designated: it comes from the usage of the monas which is nothing other than the unary trait.

在陈述里,这个统一的来临,作为每个生命实存的特征,在此被指明:它来自这些单子的用途,那实实在在就是这个「单一特征」。

It was worthwhile picking up this thing precisely from the pen of a geometer namely of someone who situates himself in mathematics in such a fashion apparently that for him at least, we must say that intuition conserves all its original value. It is true that
he is not just any old geometer, because in short we can (3) single him out in the history of geometry as the one who was the first to introduce, as having absolutely to dominate it, the exigency for proof over what could be called experience, the
familiarity with space.

这是值得的,确实是从一位几何学家的笔端,挑选出来的这个东西。换句话说,某个人在数学里,定位他自己,以这样明显的方式。至少对于他而言,我们必须说,直觉保存所有它的原初的价值。的确,他不仅是任何一位老几何学家,因为总之,我们能够从几何学的历史,挑选他出来,作为是第一位介绍证据的迫切性,作为绝对是必须要支配它,对于能够被称为是经验,对于空间的熟悉,证据的迫切性。

I will finish the translation of the quotation: “that number for its part is nothing other than this sort of multiplicity which arises precisely from the introduction of units”, monads in the sense that this is understood in Euclid’s text.

我将会完成这段引文的翻译:「那个数字就它本身而言,实实在在就是这种多重性。这种多重性确实是从各种单元的介绍产生。」在欧克里德的文本,这是被了解的意义的各种「单子」。

If I identify this function of the unary trait, if I make of it the unveiled face of this einziger Zug of identification, to which we were led by our path last year, let us highlight here, before going any further and so that you may know that contact is
never lost with what is the most direct field of our technical and theoretical reference to Freud, let us highlight that it is a question here of the second kind of identification, p.117, volume 13 of the Gesammelte Werke of Freud. It is indeed as a conclusion to the definition of the second kind of identification which he calls regressive, in so far as it linked to a certain abandoning of the object that he defines as the beloved object.

假如我认同这个单一特征的这个功用,假如我用认同的单一特征解释它,去年我们被我们的途径引导到那里,让我们在此强调,在更进一步探索之前,为了让你们知道,我们从技术及理论引述弗洛伊德的最直接领域,并非没有迷失茫然的时刻。让我们强调,在此的问题是第二种认同,(弗洛伊德全集第13册,117页)。这确实是作为第二种认同的定义,他称之为「倒退」。因为它跟这个客体的某种放弃息息相关,他定义这个客体,为被钟爱的客体。

This beloved object goes from women to rare books. It is always in some measure linked to the abandoning or the loss of this object that there is produced, Freud tells us, this sort of regressive state from which there arises this identification which he underlines (with something which is for us a source of admiration, as each time the discoverer designates a trait derived from his experience which it might seem at first approach is not required by anything, that it has a contingent character, (4) moreover he does not justify it, except by his experience) that in this sort of identification where the ego sometimes copies the situation of the unloved object, sometimes that of the
beloved object, but that in both cases this identification is partial: “hochst beschrankt” extremely limited – but which is accentuated in the sense of narrowness, of restrictedness by the fact that it is “nur ein einziger Zug”, only a single trait of the objectified person, which is like the place borrowed from the German word.

这个被钟爱的客体范围从女人到珍本书籍。在某个程度上,它总是跟在那里被产生的这个客体的放弃,或丧失息息相关。弗洛伊德告诉我们,这种的倒退状态,认同从那里产生。他强调 (用某家对于我们是令人崇拜的来源,因为每一次,发现者指明一个他从经验获得的特征。乍然一看,那个特征并不是被任何东西所要求,它具有偶然性的特性,而且,他并没有证明它的合理性,除了用他的经验)。在这样的认同里,自我有时模拟这个没有被爱的客体的情境,有时是被钟爱的客体的情境。但是在两种情境里,这种认同都是部分的:极端受到限制。但是它被强调,根据这个狭隘性及限制性的意义。事实上,这是被客体化的这个人的仅有的单一特征。就像从德文字词借用过来的这个位置“ nu rein einzier Zug”。

It may therefore seem to you that to approach identification through this second type, is also to “beschrSnken” myself, limit myself, restrict the import of my approach; because there is the other, the identification of the first kind, the singularly
ambivalent one which is constructed on the basis of the image of assimilating devouring; and what relationship has it with the third, the one which begins immediately after this point which I am designating for you in Freud’s paragraph: the identification to the other through the instrumentality of desire, the identification that we know well, which is hysterical, but precisely which I taught you cannot be properly distinguished – I think you ought to be sufficiently aware of it – except when there has been structured – and I do not see anyone who has done it anywhere other than here and before it was done here – desire as presupposing in its underlay exactly as a minimum the whole articulation that we have given of the relationships of the
subject specifically to the signifying chain, in so far as this relationship profoundly modifies the structure of every relationship of the subject with each one of his needs.

因此,你们似乎觉得,通过这第二种来探讨认同,也是限制我自己,限制我的探讨的意义。因为还有另外一种认同,第一种的认同,这个独特性暧昧的一种认同。它根据吸收,吞噬,及跟第三种认同的关系作为基础来建构。我根据弗洛伊德的段落,跟你们指明的这一点之后,立刻开始的认同:通过欲望作为工具,对于大他者的认同。这种认同,我们耳熟能详,它是歇斯底里,我确实跟你们教导的,它无法适当地被区别—我认为你们应该充分知道它—除了当欲望曾被被作为结构—在此之前,我不明白有任何人曾经在此以外的地方从事过—在它的基础,确实是作为最小量,欲望作为预先假设我们被给予的整个的表达,关于主体跟能指化的锁链的明确的关系。因为这个关系深刻地修改主体跟他的每个需要的每个关系的结构。

(5) This partiality of the approach, this way in, as I might say, into a corner of the problem, I have the feeling that at the same time as I designate it for you, I should legitimate it today, and I hope to do it quickly enough to allow myself to be understood
without too many detours by recalling to you something that is a methodological principle for us: that, given our place, our function, what we have to do as we break new ground, we should be mistrustful, let us say – and take this as far as you wish –
of genus and even of class.

我不妨说,这种探讨方法的局部性,探究到问题的角落,我拥有这种感觉:在我跟你们指明它的同时,我今天应该让它合理化。我希望足够快速从事,为了让我被人了解,而不需要太多的迂迴,来提醒你们某件对于我们是方法论的原理的东西。假如考虑到我们的立场,我们的功能,我们必须做的事情,当我们突破新的立场,我们应该不要轻易相信这些种类及甚至是分类—我们不妨这样说。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 22

March 25, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 22
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

https://springhero.wordpress.com

A signifier is distinguished from a sign first of all in this which is what I tried to get you to sense: the fact is that signifiers only manifest at first the presence
of difference as such and nothing else.

能指与符号的区别,首先是在这个,这是我尝试要你们理解的:事实上,能指起初仅是证明差异本身的存在,没有别的。

The first thing therefore that it implies is that the relationship of the sign to the thing should be effaced:

因此,能指暗示的第一件事情是,符号跟事情的关系,应该被抹除:

Sign
————–
Someone

符号
——-
某人

something S these ones of the Magdalenian bone, it would be a very clever man who could tell you sign what they were the sign of.

某件东西,S是马达列尼恩人骨头的这些符号,一位非常聪明的人才能告诉你们,它们是什么的符号。

And someone we, thank God, are advanced enough since Magdalenian for you to perceive the following – which for you has the same sort no doubt of naive obviousness, allow me to tell you that “A is A”, namely that, as you were taught in school, you cannot add up oranges and apples, pears with carrots and so on, is a complete error; this only begins to be true when one starts from a (21) definition of addition which supposes, I assure you, a number of axioms which would be enough to cover this whole section of the blackboard.

至于某人,感谢上帝,自从马达列尼恩以来,我们就经常被提出,为了让你们感觉以下的东西。对于你们而言,这个东西无可质疑地具有相同的天真的显见的东西。它让我能够告诉你们,「A就是A」。换句话说,如同你们在学校被教导,你们无法将桔子与蘋果,梨子与胡罗卜,混加在一块,等等。这是完全错误。仅有当我们从一个加的定义开始,它才开始成为真实。我告诉你们,这种加的定义,假设许多的公理。这些公理足够涵盖黑板的这整个部分。

At the level at which things are taken in our own day in mathematical reflection, specifically to call it by its name in set theory, it is not possible in the most fundamental operations, such as, for example, a union or an intersection,
there would be no question of posing such exorbitant conditions for the validity of operations.

在我们的时代,以数学的反思,明确地直称其名为集合理论,我们以这个层次探讨这些事情。要以最基本的运算是不可能从,譬如,以统合或是交会。我们不可能提出如此超过的情况,来获得运算的正确性。

You can very well add up what you want at the level of a certain register for the simple reason that what is involved in a set, is, as was well expressed by one of the theoreticians speculating on one of these so-called paradoxes: it is not a matter of objects, or of things, it is a question of 1 very exactly in what one calls the element of sets.

你能够清楚地增加你们所想要的,以某种铭记的层次。理有很简单,在集合所牵涉的东西,如同一位理论家清楚地表达,他反思其中一种这次悖论:这并不是客体或是东西的问题。这是「一」的问题,确实在我们所谓的各种集合的要素。

This is not sufficiently remarked on in the text to which I allude for a celebrated reason: it is because precisely this reflection on what a 1 is is not well elaborated even by those who in the most modern mathematical theory nevertheless make of it the clearest, the most manifest usage.

这并没有充分地重新被标示在我提到的文本里,因为一个著名的理由: 确实是因为对于这个「一」的这个反思,并没有清楚地被建构,甚至那些在最现代的数学理论里,他们以最清楚,最明显的用途解释它。

This 1 as such, in so far as it marks pure difference, it is to it that we are going to refer to put to the test, at our next meeting the relationship of the subject to the signifier. It will first of all be necessary for us to distinguish the signifier from the sign and for us to show in what sense the step taken is that of the effaced thing: the different “effaçons” if you will allow me to use this formula, in which the signifier (22) comes to birth, will give us precisely the major modes of
the manifestation of the subject.

这个「一」,因为它标示纯粹的差异,我们将要提出它作为测试。在我们下一次的聚会,主体跟能指的关系。首先,我们将有需要区别能指与符号。我们有需要显示,以步骤被採取的意义,那就是这个被抹除的东西的意义。这些不同的「抹除物」,假如你们容许我使用这个公式,能指诞生的这个公式。它将给予我们确实就是主体证明的主要模式。

Already, to indicate to you, to remind you of the formulae under which I noted for you for example the function of metonymy, the big S function in so far as
it is in a chain which is continued by S ‘ , S * ‘ , S * ‘ ‘ , etc… this is what ought to give us the effect that:

已经跟你们指示,为了提醒你们这个公式。譬若,在这个公式下,我跟你们提醒换喻的这个功能,这个大写的S作为主体的功能,因为在锁链里,它后面继续著S ‘ , S * ‘ , S * ‘ ‘ , 等等。这是应该给予我们这个结果。

f S S’ S1′ s ‘ ” etc
f (S, S’, S’1…) = S( – ) s

I called that of the peu-de-sens, in so far as the minus sign designates, connotes a certain mode of appearance of the signified as it results from the putting into function of S the signifier in a signifying chain. S( – ) s

我称为啥「小意义」的效应,因为这个减号指明,指示「所指」定某种外表的模式,因为它是S这个能指发挥功能的结果,在一个能指化的锁链里。S( – ) s

We will put it to the test of a substitution for these S and S* of 1 in so far as precisely this operation is quite legitimate, and you know it better than anybody, you for whom repetition is the basis of your experience: what constitutes the core of repetition, of the automatism of repetition for your experience is not that it is always the same thing which is interesting, it is why there is repeated something of which precisely the subject from the point of view of his biological comfort has not – as you know – really any strict need as regards the repetitions
that we have to deal with, namely the stickiest, the most annoying, the most symptomogenic repetitions.

我们将会将它给予一个替代的考验,对于这个「一」定这些S及S*。但这个运作确实是相当合理的,你们比任何其他人都更加知道它。对于你们而言,重复是你们经验的基础。组成重复的这个核心,对于你们的经验而言,是重复的自动机制,并不是因为有趣的总是相同的事情,那就是为什么某件东西被重复,对于这个东西,的确,主体从他的生物的舒适度观点而言—如你们知道—还没有绝对的需要,关于我们必须处理的这些重复。换句话说,这个最严格,最令人懊恼,最病征性起源的重复。

This is where your (23) attention should be directed in order to uncover in it as
such the incidence of the function of the signifier.

这就是你们的注意力应该被引导,为了在它里面揭发能指的功能的偶然性的本身。

How can it happen, this typical relationship to the subject constituted by the existence of the signifier as such, the only possible support of what is for us originally the experience of repetition?

它是如何发生?这个跟主体的典型的关系,由能指本身的存在所组成,这个可能的支持,对于我们而言,起初是重复的经验的本身?

Will I stop there or will I already indicate to you how the formula of the sign must be modified in order to grasp, to understand what is in question in the advent of the signifier.

我将停在那里吗?我将跟你们指示,符号的这个公式必须被修正,为了理解,为了了解什么受到质疑,在这个能指的来临?

The signifier, as opposed to the sign, is not what represents something for someone, it is what represents precisely the subject for another signifier; my dog is on the lookout for signs and then she speaks, in the way you know, why is her speech not a language; because precisely I am for her something which can give her signs, but who cannot give her any signifier.

这个能指,作为跟这个符号相对立,并不是对于某人代表某物的东西。它确实对于另外一个能指,代表主体。我的狗正在注意寻求符号,然后她言说,以你们知道的方式。为什么她的言说并非是一种语言?因为确实地,对于她,我是某件能够给予她的符号的人,但是无法给予她任何的能指。

The distinction between speech (la parole), as it can exist at the preverbal level and language consists precisely in this emergence of the function of the signifier.

在言说与语言之间的这个区别,因为言说存在于前文辞的层次。这个区别确实在于能指的这个功能的出现。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 21

March 24, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 21
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

Well then it is only much later that we find the trace of something which belongs unambiguously to the signifier.

呵呵,过了很久以后,我们发现某件东西的痕迹,清处地属于能指。

And this signifier is all alone, because I do not intend giving, for want of information, a special meaning to this little increased gap that there is some place in this line of strokes; it is possible, but I can say nothing about it. What I mean, on the contrary, is that here we see arising something which I am
not saying is the first appearance, but in any case a certain (17) appearance of something which you see is altogether distinguished from what can be designated as a qualitative difference: each one of these traits is not at all identical to its neighbour, but it is not because they are different that they
function as different, but because the signifying difference is distinct from anything that refers to qualitative difference, as I have just shown you with the little things that I have just circulated before you.

这个能指完全孤独,因为由于欠缺资讯,我并没有打算给予一个特别的意义,给这个小小的增加的差距。在这个笔划的脉络里有个位置,假如可能的话,但是我对它完全无法说任何事情。相反地,我的意思是,在此,我们看到某件东西的此项,我并不是说首次出现,但是无论如何,某件东西的某种出现,你们看到,它完全不同,跟所能指明是品质的差异:每一个这些特征跟它的邻居完全不同,但是这并不是因为他们不同,他们才发挥功能当著是不同。而是因为这个能指化的差异,不同于任何提到品质的差异。如同我刚刚跟你们显示的,用我刚刚在你们面前传看到那些小东西。

Qualitative difference can even on occasion underline the signifying sameness. This sameness is constituted precisely by the fact that the signifier as such serves to connote difference in the pure state, and the proof is that at its first appearance the one manifestly designates multiplicity as such. In other words, I am a hunter because now we have been carried to the level of Magdalenian .

品质的差异有时甚至强调这个能指化的相同。这种相同确实是由这个事实组成:能指的本身充当指明纯粹状态的差异。这个证据是,在它首先出现时,这个能指明显地指明本身的多重性。换句话说,我是一位猎人,因为现在我们已经被带到马达列尼恩人的层次。

God knows that catching an animal was not any more simple at that epoch than it is in our own day for those who are called Bushmen, and it was quite an adventure! It seems indeed that after having wounded the beast it was necessary to track it for a long time in order to see it succumb to what
was the effect of the poison. I kill one of them, it is an adventure, I kill another of them, it is a second adventure which I can distinguish by certain traits from the first, but which resembles it essentially by being marked with the same general line.

上帝知道,在那个时代,捉住一隻动物并不是简单的事情,如同在我们的时代,那些所谓的「丛林人」。似乎,这确实是一种冒险:先将动物弄伤之后,还有需要追踪它很久的时间,为了看到它屈服于毒药的效应。我杀死其中一隻,那是一种冒险。我杀死另外一隻,那是第二次冒险。我能够根据某种的特征区别第一隻,但是基本上类似它,以标明相同的一般的脉络。

At the fourth, there may be some confusion: what distinguishes it from the second, for example. At the twentieth, how will I know where I am, or will I even know that I have had twenty of them?

在第四次,可能会有些混淆:譬如,区别它跟第二次的差别。在第二十次,我将如何知道,我在这哪里,或是我甚至如何知道,我已经有二十次。

(18) The Marquis de Sade at the Rue Paradis in Marseille, locked up with his little valet, proceeded in the same way for the ejaculations (coups), even though varied in different ways, that he got off in the company of this partner, even with some confederates who themselves were varied in different ways.

马塞尔的萨德爵士跟他的男仆人被囚禁,他们以同样的方式继续射精,即使花样百出。他在这个伴侣的陪伴下获得发泄,甚至是跟一些同志,他们自己也是花样百出。

This exemplary man, whose relationships to desire must surely have been marked by some unusual ardour, whatever one might think, marked on the head of his bed, it is said, by little traits each one of the ejaculations – to give them their name – that he managed to achieve in this sort of singular probationary retreat.

这个典范的人,他跟欲望的关系,当时一定曾经被标示为某种不寻常的热爱。无论我们怎么认为,他们一定在他的床头曾经被标示。据说是根据一些小的特征,对于每一次的射精,给于它们名字。他成功地完成的的射精,在这种独特的被禁闭的隐退当中。

Undoubtedly one must oneself be well engaged in the adventure of desire, at least according to everything that ordinary things teach us about the most ordinary experience of people, in order to have such a need to locate oneself in the sequence of one’s sexual accomplishments: it is nevertheless not unthinkable that at certain favourable epochs of life something can become hazy about the exact point that one is at in terms of decimal enumeration.

无可置疑地,我们自己必须专心一致于欲望的冒险,至少,依照普通事情教导我们的一切,关于人们的最普通的经验,为了拥有如此一种需要,将我们自己定位在自己性的成就的系列。可是,这并非是不可思议的,在人生的某些有利的时代,某件东西能够成为晕眩,关于我们使用十进位的列举,标明我们所在的确实点。

What is in question in the notch, in the notched trait, is something of which we cannot help seeing that here there arises something new with respect to what one could call the immanence of any essential action whatsoever. This being whom we can imagine to be still lacking this method of location, what will he
do, after a time which is rather short and limited by intuition, in order not to sense himself simply solidary with a present which is always easily renewable where nothing allows him any longer to discern what exists as difference in the real.

在这种刻度受到质疑的东西,在这个被刻度的特征,有某件东西,我们忍不住看出,在此某件新的东西产生,关于我们能够称为任何基本行动的永久性。这个生命实存,我们能够想象依旧欠缺这种位置的方法,他将会做些什么,经过一段相当短而受到直觉限制的时间,为了不要理解他自己,仅是跟总是能够更新的当下统一。在当下,没有一样东西再能够让他觉察出在实在界存在作为差异的东西。

It is not at all sufficient to say – this is already quite obvious -(19) that this difference is in the living experience of the subject just as it is not at all sufficient to say: “But all the same such and such a person is not me”. It is not simply because Laplanche has hair like that and that I have hair like this and
that his eyes are a certain way and that he has not got quite the same smile as me, that he is different.

这样说根本就不足够—这已经是显而易见—他的差异是在主体的活生生的经验里,正如这样说根本就不足够: 「但是仍然如此的一个人并不是我。」这不仅是因为拉兰奇拥有像那样的头发,而我拥有像这样的头发。他的眼睛是某种的方式,他并没有像我这样的微笑,所以他跟我不同。

You will say: “Laplanche is Laplanche and Lacan is Lacan”. But it is precisely there that the whole question lies, since precisely in analysis the question is posed whether Laplanche is not the thought of Lacan and if Lacan is not the being of Laplanche or inversely.

你们将会说,「拉兰奇是拉兰奇,而拉康是拉康。」但是整个的问题,确实就是在那里,因为确实在精神分析,这个问题被提出: 拉兰奇是否就是拉康的思想,以及拉康是否不是拉兰奇的生命实存,或是颠倒过来说。

The question is not sufficiently resolved in the real. It is the signifier which settles it, it is it that introduces difference as such into the real, and
precisely in the measure in that what is involved are not at all qualitative differences.

这个问题在实在界并没有充分地被解决。这个能指解决它。这个能指介绍差异的本身进入实在界。确实是因为所被牵涉到,根本不是品质地差异。

But then if the signifier, in its function of difference, is something which presents itself thus in the mode of the paradox of being precisely different because of this difference which would be based or not on similarity, of being something other which is distinct and as regards which – I repeat – we can very
well suppose, because we have them within our reach, that there are beings who are alive and tolerate

但是假如这个能指,在它的差异的功能,是某件呈现它自己,确实就是差异的矛盾的模式。因为它并不是以类似作为基础的这个差异,它是其他的某件不同的东西。关于这个东西,我重复一遍,我们能够明白地假设,因为们掌控着它们,有些的生命实存实活生生,而且容忍的。

Very well completely ignoring this sort of difference which certainly, for example, is not at all accessible to my dog, and I will not show you immediately – because I will show it to you in greater detail and in a more articulated fashion – that it is indeed for that reason that apparently the only thing that she does not know, is that she herself is. And that she herself is, we ought to search for the mode under which this is appended to this sort of distinction which is particularly manifest in the unary trait in so far as (20) what distinguishes it is not at all an identity of resemblance, it is something else.

呵呵,完全忽视这种的差异,譬如,根本就没有接近我的狗,我将会立刻跟你们显示—因为我将会跟你们详细显示,以更加被表述的方式—确实是因为这个理由,显而易见地,她唯一不知道的事情是她本身的生命实存。她本身的生命实存,我们应该寻求这个模式,这被附加到这种的区别,特别是在这个独特的特征展现出来。因为区别这个独特特征的,根本就不是类似的认同,它是别的东西。

What is this other thing?

这个别的东西是什么呢/

It is this: it is that the signifier is not at all a sign. A sign, we are told, is to represent something for someone: the someone is there as a support for the sign. The first definition that one can give of a someone is: someone who is accessible to a sign. It is the most elementary form, if one can express oneself
in that way of subjectivity; there is no object at all here yet, there is something different: the sign, which represents this something for someone.

它是这个: 能指根本不是一种符号。我们被告诉,符号是用来对于某人所代表的东西。这个某人在那里,作为一种对于符号的支持。关于某人是什么,我们能够给予的第一个定义是:某人是可让符号接近的。这是最基本的形式,假如我们能够表达我们自己,以那种主观性的态度。在此,还根本就没有客体存在,有某件不同的东西:符号是替某人代表这个某件东西。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 20

March 24, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 20
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

(13) This to introduce you to what constitutes the essence of the signifier and which it is not for nothing that I will illustrate best in its simplest form which is what we have been designating for some time as the einziger Zug. The einziger Zug which is what gives to this function its value, its act and its
mainspring, this is what makes it necessary, in order to dissipate the confusion that may remain here, for me to introduce in order to express it in the best and closest possible way this term which is not at all an neologism, which is used in what is called set theory: the word unary (unaire) instead of the word single (unique).

这是为了要跟你们介绍,是什么组成能指的本质。这并非毫无意义,我将以最简单的形式,跟你们详加说明。这个形式上我们一直在设计一段时间,作为这个「单一特征 einziger Zug」。这个单一特征就是给予这个功能它的价值,它的行动及它的原动力。这是让它成为必要的东西,为了驱散可能留在这里的混淆,为了让我介绍,为了以最佳及最尽可能地方式表达这个根本不是新被杜撰的术语。它在所谓的集合理论里被使用。「单一特征unary」这个字词,而不是「独特unique」这个词

At the very least it is useful for me to make use of it today in order to make you properly sense this core that is in question in the distinction of the status of the
signifier. This unary trait, therefore, whether it is vertical like here – we call that drawing strokes – or whether it is, as the Chinese do it, horizontal, it might seem that its exemplary function is linked to the extreme reduction, precisely with regard to it, of all the opportunités for qualitative difference.

至少,我今天使用它帮助很大,为了让你们适当地理解这个受到质疑的核心,在区别能指的功能的地位。因此,这个单一特征,无论是否像这里那样直划—我们称它笔画—或是否如中国人的写法,横划。似乎,典型的功能跟这个极端的还原有关,确实是关于它,对于数量的差异的所有机会。

I mean that from the moment when I must simply make a trait, there are not, it seems, many varieties nor many variations.

我的意思是,从那个时刻开始,当我仅是形成一个特征,似乎没有许多的变化,也没有许多的转变。

This is what gives it its privileged value for us, disabuse yourselves: just as it was not a matter earlier in order to discover what was in question in the formula: “there is no tautology” of pursuing tautology there precisely where it did not exist, so now it is not a matter here of discerning what I called the perfectly graspable character of the status of the signifier whatever it may be, A or another one, in the fact that something in its structure might eliminate these differences. I call them qualitative because it is this term that the logicians use when (14) it is a question of defining identity by the elimination of
qualitative differences by reducing them as one might say to a simplified schema: this is supposed to be the mainspring of this recognition characteristic of our apprehension of what is the support of the signifier, the letter.

这就是给予我们它的特权的价值,请你们破除这个观念。正如问题并不是早先的为了发现,这个公式受到质疑的是什么:追求同义反复里「没有同义反复」,确是在同义反复并不存在的地方。所以现在,在此的问题并不是觉察出我所谓的能指的地位完全可理解的特性,无论那个特性是什么,A 或是另外一个A。 事实上,在它的结构里的某件东西,可能减少这些差异。我称它们是数量的差异,因为逻辑专家使用的这个术语,当问题是要定义这个认同,凭借着数量差异的减少,将它们还原成为一个简化的基模,我们不妨说。这被认为是作为我们理解的这个特性的体认的原动力,理解能指,这个信息的支持是什么?

That is not it at all, this is not what is in question. Because if I make a line of strokes, it is quite clear that, however well I may apply myself, there will not be a single one like any another and I would say more: they are all the more convincing as a line of strokes in that precisely I have not applied myself so
much to make them rigorously alike.

这根本不是那样,这并不是所被质疑的东西。因为假如我将笔画列成一行,显而易见地,无论我多么地用心,不会有一行像任何其他一行。我不妨更进一步说: 它们都是令人信服的,作为一行笔划,因为确实地,我没有如此用心,使它们酷似相像。

Since I have been trying to formulate for you what I am in the process of formulating at the moment, I have questioned myself with the means at my disposal, namely those which are given to everyone, about something which after all is not immediately obvious: at what moment does one see appearing a line of strokes?

因为我曾经尝试跟你们说明,我正在那个时刻说明的,我曾经质疑我自己,使用我能够使用的方法。换句话说,那些被给予每个人的方法,关于某件东西,毕竟,那不是立即显而易见。在什么时刻我们看见一行笔划出现?

I was in a really extraordinary place whose emptiness perhaps after all through my remarks I am going to draw people to animate, I mean that some of you are going to rush over there, I mean the museum of Saint-Germain. It is fascinating, it is exciting and it will be all the more so if you try all the same to find someone who was already there before you because there is no catalogue, no plan and where and who and what, and to find out where one is in this series of rooms.

我处于一个确实是特别的位置,这个位置的空无,或许毕竟通过我的谈论,我将要吸引人们激动起来。我的意思是,你们有些人将要匆促到那里,我的意思,圣炯门的博物馆。那是迷人,令人興奋的,假如你们仍然尝试要找到某个人,那更是如此。这个人已经在你们之前在那里,因为没有目录,没有计划,没有地方,没有人,也没有什么。为了要找出在这一系列的房间,我们在哪里。

There is a room which is called La Salle Piette, from the name of the justice of the peace who was a (15) genius and who made the most fantastic discoveries about pre-history, I mean from some tiny objects, in general of a very small size, which are the most fascinating things that you could see.

有一个房间被称为撒里、皮亚特,取和平正义者之意。他是一位天才,关于史前史,他有个最令人惊奇的发现,我指的是,根据某些微小的东西,一般说来,是非常微小,它们是你们能够看到的最令人惊奇的东西。

And to hold in one’s hand the little head of a woman which is certainly about 30,000 years old has all the same its value, besides the fact that this head is full of questions. But you can see in a glass case – it is very easy to see, because thanks to the testamentary dispositions of this remarkable man they are absolutely obliged to leave everything in the greatest possible disorder with completely out-of-date showcards on the objects, they have succeeded all the same in putting on a piece of plastic something which allows to be distinguished the value of certain of these objects.

用一个人的手握住一个女人的小头颅,这个女人确实是在30,000年前,这仍然具有它的价值,除了这个事实; 这个头颅问题重重。但是你们能够从玻璃柜里看出—这很容易看出,因为由于这位杰出人物的遗传的性情,他们不得不绝对勉强地留下一切,在尽可能地失序,跟完全老旧的这些客体的展示柜。他们仍然成功地将某件东西套上一层塑胶,这让某些这些东西的价值能够被区别出来。

How can I tell you the emotion that I felt when bending over one of these glass cases I saw on a thin rib-bone, obviously the rib of a mammal – I do not really know which one, and I do not know whether anyone would know better than I, a type of Cervide deer – a series of little strokes: first two, then a little interval and afterwards five, and then it recommences.

我如何告诉你们我感受到的情感,当我弯身俯视这些玻璃柜,我看到,在一块薄薄的肋骨,显而易见是哺乳动物的肋骨—我并不确实知道是哪一种哺乳动物,我不知道是否有任何人会比我更加知道一种塞白得的鹿—这是一系列的笔划,前面两个毕划,然后有个小间隔,然后是五个笔划,然后它重新开始。

There, I said to myself addressing myself by my secret or my public name, this is why in short Jacques Lacan your daughter is not mute, this is why your daughter is your daughter, because if we were mute she would not be your daughter.

我跟自己说,用我的秘密或我的公开的名字对我自己说,这是为什么亚克、拉康,你的女儿不是哑巴。这就是为什么你的女儿是你的女儿,因为假如我们哑巴,她将不会是你的女儿。

Obviously, there is some advantage in this, even living in a world very like that of a universal asylum of madmen, a no less certain consequence of the existence of signifiers, as you are going to see.

显而易见地,在这一点,有某个利益,甚至生活在一个像那样的世界,属于普遍性的疯人院的世界。能指们的存在的同样确定的结果,如同你们将会看出的。

These strokes which only appear much later, several thousand (16) years after men knew how to make objects of a realistic exactitude, when at the Aurignacian epoch bisons were made which are beyond anything from the point of view of the art of the painter that we have yet been able to achieve! But what is more, at the same epoch people made in bone on a very small scale, a
reproduction of something that it might not seem one should have taken so much trouble over because it is a reproduction of something else in bone but which is much bigger: a horse’s skull.

这些笔划仅是后来出现,好几千年以后,人们知道如何制作跟现实一样精确的东西,当在奥瑞奈西恩的时代,野牛被制作,远超过我们迄今能够完成的画家的艺术的观点。但是,尤有甚者,在相同的时代,人们小规模地用骨头制作,复制某件东西,似乎,我们不应该如此费心来探究。因为用骨头来复制某件东西,但是更大些,那是一匹马的头颅。

Why redo in bone on a small scale, when really one imagines that at that epoch they had other things to be doing, this matchless reproduction? I mean that, in le Cuvier which I have at my country house, I have extremely remarkable engravings of fossilized skeletons which are made by consummate artists, these are no better than this small reduction of a horse’s skull
sculptured in bone which is of such an anatomical exactitude that not only is it convincing: it is rigorous.

为什么小规模地用骨头重做,当我们确实想象,在那个时代,他们有其他的东西能够做,这种无以伦比的复制?我的意思是,在库维尔那里,我在我的乡下的房屋,我有极端杰出的化石骷髅的雕刻,它们是顶尖的艺术家制作。这些是跟以骨头雕刻的马的头颅的小型模型同样的优秀。后者具有解剖的精确度,它不但令人信服,而且严谨。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 19

March 24, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 19
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

This involves conditions of things which are a little bit different, this is what Peguy called that “the little pegs no longer fitted into the little holes”.

这牵涉到事情的情况,稍微不同。这是培古所谓的「」方枘不再套入圆洞」。

It is a Peguy-type definition, namely that it is not at all certain: one could even sustain the contrary, namely that it is precisely in order to put the little pegs back in their real little holes that war begins, or on the contrary it is to make new little holes for the old little pegs, and so on.

培古类型的定义,换句话说,它根本就不确定:我们能够甚至维持相反的说法。也就是说,为了将小方枘放回它们的真实的小洞,战争会开始,或是相反地,这是为了让新的小洞容纳小方枘,等等。

Moreover this has strictly no interest for us, except that this pursuit whatever it may be is accomplished with a remarkable efficacity by means of the most profound imbecility, something which ought equally make us reflect on the function of the subject with respect to the effects of the signifier.

而且,我们对于这个根本没有興趣,除了,无论这种追求是什么,它被完成,以一种杰出的有效性,凭借着最深奥的白痴,某件东西同样应该让我们反思,对于主体的功用,关于这个能指的效应。

(9) But let us take something simple, and let us finish with it quickly. If I say “my grandfather is my grandfather” you should all the same fully grasp here that there is no tautology: that my grandfather, the first term is an index usage of the term “my grandfather”, which is not tangibly different from his proper
name, for example Emile Lacan, nor of the “C”‘ either of the “C’est” when I point him out when he enters a room: “C’est mon grand’pere”.

但是先谈简单的东西,让我们很快完成它。假如我说「我的祖父是我的祖父」,你们在此应该充分理解,这并不是同义反复,我的祖父,第一个术语是「我的祖父」这个术语的一种索引用法,它实质上跟他的专有名词没有不同。譬如,拉康、阿米勒,也不是说C’est的C,当我指出他,当他进入房间:C’est mon grand’pere。

This does not mean that his proper name is the same thing as this “C”1, of this is my grandfather. One is stupefied that a logician like Russell was able to say that the proper name belongs to the same category, to the same signifying class as the this, that or it, under the pretext that they are susceptible to the same functional usage in certain cases.

这并不意味着,他的专有名词跟这个C是相同的东西,跟这是我的祖父。我们大吃一惊,当像罗素这样的逻辑专家,竟然能够说出:专有名词属于相同的范畴,属于跟这个相同的能指化的范畴,不论那个或这个,藉口是,在某些的情况,它们容易受到功用性的用途的影响。

This is a parenthesis, but like all my parentheses, a parenthesis designed
to be rediscovered further on in connection with the status of the proper name of which we will not speak today.

这是一个括弧,但是像我所有的括弧,一个括弧被设计要重新被发现,关于这个专有名词的地位,我们今天将不会谈论到。

In any case, what is in question in “my grandfather is my grandfather” means that the execrable petit bourgeois that this gentleman was, this horrible personage thanks to whom I acceded at an early age to this function of cursing God, this personage is exactly the same as the one who is posted on the civil
register as being demonstrated by the bonds of marriage to be the father of my father, in as much as it is precisely the birth of the latter that is at stake in the act in question.

无论如何,在「我的祖父是我的祖父」,受到质疑的东西意味著,这位绅士是可恶的小资产阶级,这个可怕的人物。由于他,我在早年时,我沉溺于诅咒上帝的功能,这个人物,确实是相同的,跟在婚姻契约所展示的民法关系是我的父亲的父亲。确实就是后者的诞生,在受到质疑的演出时岌岌可危。

You see therefore the degree to which “my grandfather is my grandfather”
is not at all a tautology. This applies to all tautologies and this does not at all give their univocal formula, because here it is a question of a relationship of the real to the symbolic; in (10) other cases there will be a relationship of the imaginary to the symbolic, and you would have to go through the whole sequence of permutations in order to see which are valid. I cannot engage
myself along this path because if I talk to you about this which is in a way a method of excluding false tautologies which are simply the permanent current usage of the language, it is in order to tell you that this is not what I mean.

你们因此看出这个程度,「我的祖父是我的祖父」并非是同义反复。这应用到所有的同义反复词,并且给予的公式并没有它们的一致性,因为在此的问题是实在界跟符号界的关系。在其它情况,将会有想象界跟符号界的关系。你们将必须经历转换的整个系列,为了看出,那些是正确的。我无法沿着这条途径前进,假如我跟你们谈论关于这个,它在某方面是一种排除虚假的同义反复的方法。这些同样反复仅是语言的永久性的流行用法。那是为了告诉你们,这并不是我的意思。

If I pose that there is no tautology possible, it is not in so far as the first A and the second A mean different things that I say that there is no tautology, it is in the very status of A that there is inscribed that A cannot be A, and it was on this that I ended my discourse the last time by designating for you in Saussure the point where it is said that A as signifier cannot in any way be defined except by not being what the other signifiers are.

假如我提出,同义反复并不可能,这并不是因为第一个A与第二个A意味着不同的东西,我才说同义反复并不存在。而是在A的这个地位,A 无法是 A被铭记。就是在这个地方,我上一次结束我的论述,凭借着索绪尔的语言学跟你们指明这一点: 据说,作为能指的A,无论如何无法被定义,除了就是成为其他能指的本质。

From this fact, that it cannot be defined except precisely by not being all the other signifiers, on this there depends this dimension that it is equally true that it cannot be itself. It is not enough to put it forward in this way in this opaque
fashion precisely because it surprises, it upsets, this belief suspended on the fact that this is the real support of identity: you must be got to sense it.

从这个事实,我们无法否认,确实是凭借成为所有其他的能指的本质。同样真实的是,A无法是它自己本身的这个维度,依靠这一点。在这种模棱两可的方式,以这种方法提出它是不够的,因为它惊吓,它扰乱被悬置在这个事实的这个信仰。这是认同的真实支持:你们必须理解它。

What then is a signifier?

那么,一个能指是什么?

If everybody, and not alone the logicians speak about A when it is a question of “A is A”, it is not after all by chance. It is because in order to support what one desires, a letter is necessary. You will grant me this, I think, but moreover I do
(11) not hold this leap to be decisive except for the fact that my discourse cross-checks with it, demonstrates it in a sufficiently superabundant fashion for you to be convinced of it; and you will be all the more convinced because I am going to try to show you in the letter precisely this essence of the signifier
through which it is distinguished from the sign.

假如每个人,不仅是逻辑专家谈论到A,当「A是A」的问题,毕竟并不是偶然存在的。那是为了支持我们所欲望的东西,一个字母是需要的。我认为你们将会给予我这个字母,但是我并将这种跳跃当著是决定性,除了这个事实: 我的论述跟它交叉核对,以过分丰富的方式证实它,为了让你们深信它。你们将会更加地深信,因为我将要尝试用这个字母,跟你们确实显示这个能指的本质。凭借这个本质,这个能指跟符号不同。

I did something for you last Saturday in my house in the country where I have hanging on the wall what is called a Chinese calligraph. If it were not Chinese, I would not have hung it on my wall for the reason that it is only in China that the
calligraph has taken on a value as an object d’art: it is the same thing as having a painting, it has the same price.

上个星期六,我在乡下的家里做了某家事情。我将所谓的一幅中文书法悬挂在墙壁上。即使我并非是中国人,我本来也会悬挂它在我的墙壁上,理由是,仅有在中国,书法曾经具有一种作为客体的价值。它跟拥有一幅图画是相同的事情,它拥有相同的价格。

There are the same differences and perhaps even more between one writing and another in our culture as in Chinese culture, but we do not attach the same price to it. On the other hand, I will have occasion to show you what can mask from us the value of the letter which, because of the particular status of the Chinese character, is particularly well highlighted in this character.

有些相同的差异,或许甚至有更多的差异,在我们的文化里,存在于某个书法跟另外一个书法之间,但是我们并没有赋予相同的价格给它。在一方面,我将会有机会跟你们显示,是什么遮蔽我们看不出这个字母的价值。因为中文字的这个特别的地位,在这个字里特别被强调。

What I am going to show you only takes on its full and most exact position from a certain reflection about what the Chinese character is: I already all the same made allusion enough on occasions to the Chinese character and to its status for you to know that to call it ideographic is not at all sufficient. I will show it to you perhaps in greater detail, this moreover is what it has in common with everything that is called ideographic, there is properly speaking nothing which merits this term in the sense in which one imagines it habitually, I would say almost specifically in the sense that de Saussure’s little schema, with arbor and the tree drawn underneath, still sustains it through a (12) kind of imprudence which is what misunderstandings and confusions attach themselves to.

我正要跟你们显示的,仅是从某个反思,关于中文字是什么,它才具有它的充分而确实的地位。有几个场合,我已经充分提到中文字,并且跟你们提到它的地位,为了要知道,称它为象形文字根本不足表达。或许,我将会更加详细跟你们显示。而且,这是它跟一切所谓的象形文字共同的地方。适当来说,没有东西获得这个术语,从我们习惯地想象它来说。我将会明确地说,索绪尔的小小基模,底下画著藤蔓及树状。它依旧通过某种的任意性支持它。这是误解与混淆的纠缠所在。

What I want to show you here, I made two examples of. I was brought at the same time a new little instrument that certain painters make a lot of, which is a sort of thick brush where the ink comes from inside which allows the traits to be traced out with a worthwhile thickness and consistency.

我在此想要跟你们显示的,我提到两个例子。我同时被给予一个新的小工具,某些画家非常重视的小工具。那是一种厚刷子,墨水从里面出来,容许这些特征被追踪出来,带有一种有价值的厚度及一致性。

The result is that I copied much more easily than I would normally have done the form that the characters on my calligraph have: in the left hand column here is the calligraphy of this sentence which means “the shadow of my hat dances and trembles on the flowers of Hai Tang”; on the other side, you see the same sentence written in the usual characters, those which are the most legitimate, those that the stumbling student makes when he makes his characters correctly: these two series are perfectly identifiable and at the same time they do not resemble one another at all.

结果是,我比我平常所做的,更加容易模仿我的书法幅的这些字的形态:在左边这栏,在此是这个句子的书法,意思是:「帽影舞颤海昙花」,在另外一边,你们看到相同句子用通常的文字书写,那些文字是最合情理,那是初学中文的学生正确造句时书写的。这两幅文字是完全可辨认的,同时它们互相并不相似。

Notice that it is in the clearest fashion in so far as they do not resemble one
another at all that there are quite obviously from top to bottom on the right and on the left, the same seven characters, even for someone who has no idea not alone about Chinese characters, but no idea up to now that there were things which were called Chinese characters.

请注意,一清二楚地,这些文字根本并不相似。显而易见地,在右边与左边,从顶端到底端,这些相同的七个字,甚至某位不仅是对中文字没有什么概念,而且迄今,对于所谓的中文字这些东西,也没有什么概念。

If someone discovers that for the first time drawn somewhere in a desert, he will see that on the right and on the left it is the same characters that are in question and the same series of characters on the right and on the left.

假如某个人发现,第一次被带到沙漠的某方地方,他将会看出,在右边及在左边,受到质疑的都是相同的文章,在右边及在左边,这些相同的系列的文字。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 18

March 22, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 18
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

It is here indeed that something else forces us to question ourselves about the fact that the punctuation in which this presence to the world manifests itself is not simply imaginary, namely that already it is not at all to the other that we refer ourselves here, but to this most intimate part of ourselves which we try to make the anchoring point, the root, the foundation of what we are as subjects.

确实就在这里,某件其他的东西强迫我们质疑我们自己,关于这个事实:世界的存在证明它自己,这个强调不仅是想象的,换句话说,我们在此根本不是跟他者有关,而是跟我们自己最亲密的部分有关,我们尝试将这个锚定点,这个根源,成为我们作为主体的本质的基础。

For, if we can articulate, as we have done, on the imaginary plane, that my dog recognises me as the same, we have not on the contrary any indication about the fashion in which she identifies herself; in whatever way we may (5) re-engage her within herself, we know nothing at all, we have no proof, no testimony about the mode under which she approaches this identification.

因为,假如我们能够表述,如同我们曾经做的,在想象的层次,我的狗体认我,作为相同的东西。相反地,我们并没有任何指示关于这个方式,她认同她自己,以任何我们重新让她专注于她自己的方式,我们根本不知道,我们没有证据,没有证词,关于她接近这个认同的模式。

It is indeed here that there appears the function, the value of the signifier same (mew) as such; and it is in the very measure that we are dealing with the subject that we have to question ourselves about the relationship of this
identification of the subject with what is a different dimension to everything that is the order of appearance and disappearance; namely the status of the signifier.

确实在这里,这个功用出现,能指的这个价值,本身相同。因为我们正在处理的是主体,我们必须质疑我们自己,关于主体的认同关系,认同与跟出现与消失的秩序的一切迴然不同都维度,换句话说,能指的地位。

That our experience shows us that the different modes, the different angles under which we are led to identify ourselves as subjects, at least for some of us, supposes the signifier to articulate it, even most often under an
ambiguous, improper, difficult-to-handle form subject to all sorts of reservations and of distinctions which the “A is A” is, this is what I want to draw your attention to and first of all without dallying any longer show you that if we have the good fortune to take a further step in this direction, it is by trying
to articulate this status of the signifier as such.

我们的经验跟我们显示,这些不同的模式,这些不同的角度,我们被引导认同我们自己当主主体,至少,对于我们一些人,认为这个能指表达它自己,甚至往往是在一种暧昧,不适当,难于处理的形态下,屈服于「A是A」的各种的保留与区别。这是我想要吸引你们注意的东西,而不再拖延地跟你们显示:假如我们很幸运朝着这个方向更进一步地探索,那是凭借尝试表达能指本身的这个地位。

I am indicating it right away: the signifier is not at all the sign. It is with giving to this distinction its precise formula that we are going to busy ourselves; I mean that it is to show where this difference lies that we can see arising from the fact already given by our experience that it is from the effect of the signifier that the subject as such emerges.

我立刻正在指示,这个能指根本就不是这个符号。我们将要忙碌于将它的明确的公式,给予这个区别。我的意思是,那是要显示我们能够看出的这个区别在哪里。它起源于我们精神分析经验给予的这个事实:主体本身就是从能指的这个影响出现。

Metonymical effect, metaphorical effect, we do not yet know and perhaps there is something already articulatable before these effects which allows us to see dawning, being formed in a relationship, in a link, the dependence of the subject as such with respect to the signifier.

换喻的效应,比喻的效应,我们并不知道,或许有某件东西在这些效应之前,已经被表达。它让我们能够看出,关于这个能指,主体的依靠本身逐渐开始,在关系,在连接中被形成。

(6) This is what we are going to see by putting it to the test. To anticipate what I am trying here to make you grasp, to anticipate it in a short image to which it is only a matter of giving again a sort of value as a support, as a apologue, you
should measure the difference between the following which is going at first perhaps to appear to you as a play on words – but precisely it is one – there is the footprint (la trace d’un pas).

这是我们将要看出的,将它付之考验。预期我在此正在设法让你们理解,以一种简短的意象预期它。问题仅是要如何再一次给予价值,给予这个简短的意象,作为价值,作为一种动物寓言。你们应该测量这个差异,处于以下起初出现作为是文字的遊戏,但是这确实是一个遊戏,这个足迹存在。

Already I led you along this trail, strongly tainted with myth, precisely correlative to the time where there begins to be articulated in thinking the function of the subject as such:Robinson Crusoe in front of the footprint which shows him that on the island he is not alone. The distance which separates this pas from what the pas as instrument of negation has become phonetically, these are two extremes of the chain that here I ask you to hold onto before showing you effectively what constitutes it and that it is between the two extremities of the chain that the subject can emerge and nowhere else.

我已经引导你们沿着这条途径,强烈地染上神秘的色彩,确实是跟这个时间息息相关。诸如像鲁宾逊、克鲁索这样的主体的功用在思想中开始被表达。他面临的足迹跟他显示:在这个岛上,他并不是孤单的。分开这个存在 跟作为否定的工具的存在,在语音上已经变成的东西。这些是两个锁链的极端,在此我要求你们掌握的,在我有效地跟你们显示,是什么形成它。就在这个锁链的两个极端。主体能够出现,而不是在别的地方。

By grasping it, we will manage to relativise something in such a way that you can consider this formula “A is A” itself as a sort of stigma, I mean in its character of belief as the affirmation of what I would call an epoch: epoch, moment, parenthesis, historical term after all whose field we can glimpse – as you will see – as limited.

凭借理解它,我们将成功地将某件东西相对化,以这样一种方式,你们能够认为这个公式是「A是A」,本身作为一种羞辱的标志。我的意思是,在它的信仰的特性,作为我所谓的时代的肯定。时代,时刻,括弧,毕竟都是历史的术语,它们的领域,我们能够瞥见作为是有限的,如你们将会看出。

What I called the other day an indication, which will remain still only an indication of the identity of this false coherence of the “A is A” with what I called a theological era, will allow me, I believe, to take a step in what is at stake concerning the problem of identification, in so far as analysis requires that it
(7) should be posed, with respect to a certain accession to the identical, as the transcendent A [l1Autre?].

前天我们所谓的一个指示,它始终仅是一种指示,这个「A是A」的虚假的一贯的认同,用我所谓的神学的时代。我相信,它将让我能够採取一步,对于岌岌可危的东西,关于认同的问题。如同精神分析要求这个问题应该被提出,关于某种的对于这种认同的增加,作为这个超验的大他者。

This fecundity, this sort of determination which is suspended from this signified of “A is A” could not repose on its truth, because this affirmation is not true.

这种多产,这种决定,从「A是A」的这个能指被悬置,它无法依靠它的真理,因为这种肯定并不真实。

What it is a question of reaching in what I am striving to formulate before you, is that this fecundity reposes precisely on the objective fact – I employ
objective there in the sense that it has for example in Descartes’ text: “when one goes a little further, one sees the distinction arising as regards the ideas between their actual reality and their objective reality”, and naturally professors
produce very learned volumes for us such as a Scholastico- Cartesian index in order to tell us something that seems here for the rest of us, since God knows we are very smart, a little confused, that this is a legacy of Scholasticism by means of which it is believed that everything is explained. I mean that one has spared oneself what is really involved, namely: why Descartes the anti-Scholastic, was led for his part to make use again of these old props.

问题是要到达我正在尝试跟你们说明的,这个多产确实是依靠这个客体的事实—我所谓的客体的,意思是譬如笛卡尔的文本所说的,「当我们稍微更深入探讨,我们看出这个区别产生,关于这个观念,处于它们的实际的现实界跟客体的现实界之间」。当然,教授们会产生洋洋大观的学术著作,如「笛卡尔学术索引」,为了告诉我们某件对于我们似乎有点混淆的东西,因为上帝知道,我们很聪明。这是学术的遗产,凭借它,我们相信,每一样东西都被解释。我的意思是,我们曾经让我们自己省免那些真正牵涉的东西。换句话说,为什么笛卡尔这位反对学术体制的人,就他而言,却被引导再次使用这些古老的支持。

It seems that it does not come so easily to the mind of even the better historians that the only interesting thing is what made it necessary for him to wheel them out again.

似乎,甚至那些较优秀的历史学家,也没有那么容易想到,有趣的事情是,是什么让笛卡尔将它们倾囊而出。

It is quite clear that it is not in order to remake anew the argument of St Anselm that he drags all of this out again into the forefront of the stage. The objective fact that “A” cannot be “A”, this is what I would first of all like to highlight for you; precisely in order to make you understand that it is with something which has a relationship with this objective fact that we are dealing and this up to the false signified- (8) effect which is only a shadow here and, as a consequence,
which leaves us attached to this spontaneity that there is in the “A is A”.

显而易见地,这并不是为了重新塑造圣安色姆的论点,他将这一切拖到舞台的前面。这个客体的事实:「A 无法是A」。这是我首先想要跟你们强调的,确实是为了让你们了解,用某件跟这个客体的事实有关的东西,我们正在处理这个,直到这个虚假的能指效应。在此这仅是一个阴影,结果,它让我们依附著存在于「A是A」的这个自动自发性。

That the signifier has a fecundity because it is never in any case identical to itself, understand clearly here what I mean: it is quite clear that I am not in the process, even though it would be worth the trouble in passing to distinguish it from it, of pointing out to you that there is no tautology in the fact of saying that “war is war”. Everyone knows that: when one says “war is war”, one is saying something, one does not know exactly what moreover, but one can seek it, one can find it and one finds it very easily within hand’s reach; that means: that which begins at a certain moment: we are in a state of war.

能指具有一种多产性,因为它无论如何从来没有等同于它自己,请你们在此清楚地了解我的意思:显而易见地,我并不是在这个过程当中,即使它值得我们偶然努力一下,来区别它们,跟你们指出,说「战争就是战争」的这个事实,并非是同义反复。众所周知,当我们说「战争就是战争」,我们是在说某件东西,而且,我们并没有确实地知道是什么,但是我们能够寻求它,我们能够找到它,我们很容易在我们附近找到它。那意味着:在某个时刻开始的东西,我们就处于战争的状态。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 17

March 22, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 17
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 6 December 1961

Let us take up again our idea, namely what I announced to you the last time that I intended to make pivot around the notion of the 1 our problem, that of identification, it being already announced that identification is not just simply to make 1, I think that this will not be difficult to admit.

让我们再次从事我们的观念,换句话说,我上一次跟你们宣布,我打算将我们的问题,认同的问题,以这个「一」的观念作为轴心环绕。因为它已经被宣布,认同不仅仅是要形成这个「一」,我认为,要承认这一点将不会困难。

We are starting, as is normal concerning identification, from the most common mode of access of subjective experience: that expressed by what appears to be the essentially communicable experience, in the formula which, at first sight, does not appear to give rise to objections that A is A.

我们正在开始,关于认同,这是正常的,从主体的经验最普遍的接近模式,根据外表似乎是基本上可沟通的经验,在这个公式,乍然一看,它似乎并没有产生A就是A的目标。

I said: at first sight because it is clear that, whatever may be the degree of belief involved in this formula, I am not the first to raise objections to it; you have only to open the smallest treatise on logic in order to encounter what difficulties the distinguo of this formula, in appearance the most simple, gives rise to of itself.

我说,乍然一看,因为这显而易见,不管牵涉到这个公式的信仰的程度是多少,我并不是第一个提出反对它的人。你们仅要打开这篇讨论逻辑的小小的论文,为了遭遇这个公式的区别本身产生的困难,在外表上它是最简单的。

You could even see that the greater part of the difficulties which are to be resolved in many domains – but it is particularly striking that it should be in logic more than elsewhere – come out of all the possible confusions which may arise from this formula which lends itself in an eminent way to confusion.

你们甚至看出,这些困难较大的部分,应该在许多领域被解决。但是特别耐人寻味的是,它应该在逻辑里被解决,胜过于别的地方。它从各种可能的混淆里出来。这些混淆从这个公式产生,而这个公式却以一种明显的方式促成混淆。

If you have, for example, some difficulties, even some fatigue, in (2) reading a text as exciting as Plato’s Parmenides, it is in as much as on this point of “A is A” let us say that you lack a little reflection, and in as much precisely that if I said above that the “A is A” is a belief, you must indeed understand it in
the way I told you: it is a belief which has certainly not always reigned over our species, in as much as after all, the A indeed began somewhere – I am speaking about A, the letter A – and that it must not have been so easy to gain access to this kernel of apparent certainty that there is in “A is A”, when man did not the A at his disposition.

譬如,假如你们有一些困难,甚至是一些疲倦,当你们阅读一种文本,像柏拉图的巴门尼底斯那样令人興奋,那同样是在「A是A」的这个点。让我们说,你们欠缺一些反思。同样确实地,假如我以上说到,这个「A是A」是一种信仰,你们确实了解它,以我告诉你们的方式。这是一种信仰,它确实未必总是统治我们的人类。毕竟,这个A确实是从某个地方开始—我正在谈论有关A,这个字母A。当时这一定并不是那模容易,获得接近明显确定性的核心,在「A 就是A」,当人在他自己的性情上,并没有这个A。

I will tell you a little later the path onto which this reflection may lead us; it would be well all the same to be aware of the new thing that arrives with the A; for the moment let us content ourselves with something that our language here allows us to articulate well: it is that “A is A” appears to mean something: it makes a “signified” (cela fait “signifie”).

稍后,我将会告诉你们这条途径,这个反思可能引导我们进入的途径。这仍然是要注意到跟随这个A到达的这个新的东西,目前,就让我们满足于我们在此的语言容许我们清楚表达的某件东西。那就是「A就是A」似乎意味着某件东西: 它形成一个「所指」。

I pose, very sure that I will not encounter on this point any opposition from anybody, and on this theme in a position of competence which I put to the test through the testimonies of what can be read about the matter, as well as by challenging one or other mathematician who is sufficiently familiar with his
science to know where we are at at the present time for example, and then many others in all sorts of domains, that I will encounter no opposition in putting forward under certain conditions of explanation which are precisely those to which I am going to submit myself before you, that “A is A” signifies
nothing. It is precisely this nothing (rien) that is going to be in question, because this nothing has a positive value because it says what that signifies.

我非常确定地提出,在这一点,我将不会遭遇任何人都任何的反对。对于这个主题,处于胜任的立场。我通过关于这个事情能够被说的证词,考验这个立场,并且挑战某一位数学家。他对他的科学充分地熟悉,譬如,让他知道是否我们目前的位置所在。然后许多其他的人,在各种的领域,我将不会遭遇到反对,在某些解释的情况下。这些情况确实是我将要在你们面前呈现的情况,「A是A」并没有指示著什么。确实就是这个「没有什么」将会受到置疑。因为这个「没有什么」拥有一个正面的价值,因为它说出那指示著什么。

We have in our experience, indeed in our (3) analytic folklore, something, the image never sufficiently explored, exploited, which is the game of the little
child so shrewdly picked out by Freud, perceived in such a perspicacious fashion in the Fort-Da. Let us take it up on our own account since, from an object taken up and rejected – the child in question is his grandson – Freud was able to glimpse the inaugural gesture in the game.

在我们的经验里,确实在我们的分析的传说,某件东西,这个意象从来没有充分地被探索,那就是弗洛伊德挑选的这个小孩的遊戏,以具有见识的方式,在这个「来去」的遊戏。让我们根据我们的描述从事它,因为从一个被接纳及拒绝的东西开始,这个受到质疑的小孩,是他的孙子—弗洛伊德能够瞥见这个遊戏开始的姿态。

Let us remake this gesture, let us take this little object: a ping-pong ball, I take it, I hide it, I show it to him again; the ping-pong ball is the ping-pong ball, but it is not a signifier, it is an object, it is an approach to say: this little o is a little o; there is between these two moments, which I indisputably identify in a legitimate fashion, the disappearance of the ball; without that there is no means for me to show it, there is nothing formed on the plane of the image. Therefore, the ball is always there and I can fall into a cataleptic state looking at it.

让我们重新摆出这个姿态,让我们拿这个小东西,一个乒乓球,我拿它,我隐藏它,我再一次给它显示,这个乒乓球就是乒乓球。但它并不是一个能指,它是一个客体,这是一个说的方式。这个小客体是一个小客体。在这两个时刻中间,我以一个合理的方式,我无可争辩地认同它.。这个球的消失,若不是那样,我就没有办法来显示它。在意象的这个层次,就没有东西被形成。因此,这个球总是在那里,观看它时,我陷入一种麻痹的状态。

What relationship is there between the “is” which unites the two apparitions of the ball and this intervening disappearance?

连接这个球与这个介入的消失之间的两个魅影的这个「存在」,有什么关系呢?

On the imaginary plane, you sense that at least the question is posed of the relationship of this “is” with what seems indeed to cause it, namely the disappearance, and there you are close to one of the secrets of the identification which is the one to which I tried to get you to refer in the folklore of identification: this spontaneous assumption by the subject of the identity of two appearances which are nevertheless quite different. Remember the story of the dead farm owner whom his servant rediscovers in the body of the mouse.

在想象的层层,你们感觉到,至少,这个问题被提出,关于这个「存在」跟似乎引起它的东西之间的关系。换句话说,这个消失。在那里,你们靠近认同的一个秘密,我尝试让你们提到这个秘密,在认同的传说里,这个自动自发的假设,主体对于两种相当不同的出现的认同。请记住死去的农场主人的这个故事,他的仆人在老鼠的身体上发现。

The relationship (4) of this “it is him” with the “it is him again”, this is what
for us gives its model and its register to the most simple experience of identification. Him, then him again, there is here the being-perspective of the question; in “him again”, it is the same being who appears.

这个「就是他」跟「这又是他」的关系,这是对于我们而言,给予模式及其铭记的东西,跟最简单的认同。他,又再是他,在此,有这个问题的「存在的观点」,「又再是他的观点」。它跟出现是同样的生命实存。

As regards the other, in short, it is all right like that, it is satisfactory; for my dog whom I took the other day as a term of reference, as I told you, it is all right; this reference to being, is sufficiently, its seems, supported by her sense of smell; in the imaginary field the support of being is easily conceivable: it is a matter of knowing if it is effectively this simple relationship that we are dealing
with in our experience of identification.

关于他者,总之,像那样没有问题。这是令人满意的,因为前天我带我的狗作为一种指称,如同我告诉你们,那没有问题。这种生命实存的指称,似乎受到她的嗅觉所支持,在这个想象的领域,生命实存的支持很容易被感觉出来。这个问题是要知道是否就是这个简单的关系,我们正在处理,在我们对于认同的经验。

When we speak about our experience of being, it is not at all for nothing that a whole effort of a thought which is our own contemporary one, is going to formulate something whose centrepiece I never shift without a certain smile, this Dasein, this fundamental mode of our experience in which there must be designated the centerpiece giving every access to this term of being, as a primary reference.

当我们谈论到我们对于生命实存的经验,这并非毫无意义,我们自己当代的整个思想界的努力,将要说明某件核心的东西,我每次转移,总是带着某种的微笑。这个「生命实存」,我们精神分析经验的这个基本的模式,这个核心的东西一定被设计在那里,每次接近生命实存,作为一个原初的指称。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 16

March 22, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 16
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

II
Seminar 3: Wednesday 29 November 1961

It is a matter of knowing why it is to the human being that these things happen; contrary to my dog, the human being recognizes, in the emergence of such and such an animal the personage he has just lost, whether it is a question of his family or of an eminent personage of his tribe, the chief or someone else, the president of one or other society of young people or somebody else; he is this bison, that is him, or in a particular Celtic legend which by pure chance comes to me here because I would have to speak for all eternity to tell you (16) all things that arise in my memory in connection with this central experience…

问题是知道为什么对于人类而言,这些事情是如何发生的。跟我的狗相反,人类体认到,在诸如狗这样的动物出现时,他刚刚丧失了这个人物,无论它是他家人或他部落的杰出人物,酋长或某个其他的人,年轻人某个社团的主席,或某个其他的人。他是这隻野牛。那就是他,或是在一个塞尔特的传统。纯然由于偶然,它来到我这里,因为我将必须不断地跟你们言说,一切出现在我的记忆的事情,关于这个中心的经验、、、

I take a Celtic legend which is not at all a legend, which is a piece of folklore taken from the testimony of someone who was a servant on a farm. On the death of the
master of the place, of the lord, he sees appearing a little mouse, he follows it, the little mouse goes all around the field, she comes back, she goes into the shed where the agricultural implements are, she walks on these implements: on the plough, the
hoe, the spade and the others, then she disappears.

我举例的一个塞尔特传说,根本不是一种传说。它是一种民间传说,从某个人的证词得来,他是农场的一位奴仆。在当地的主人,也就是领主弥留时,他看到一隻小老鼠出现,他跟踪它,这隻小老鼠环绕田野到处转,她回来,她回到放农具的小木屋这个小木屋,她在这些农具上面走著,在犁,在锄子,铲子,及其它东西,然后她消失。

After that the servant, who already knew what was involved as regards the mouse, has a confirmation for it in the apparition of the ghost of his master who says to him, in effect: I was in that little mouse, I made a tour of the property to say goodbye to it, I had to see the agricultural implements because these are the essential objects to which one remains attached longer than to any other, and it is only after having made this tour that I could free myself from them etc… with an infinite number of
considerations concerning in this regard a conception of the relationships of the dead person and certain instruments, linked to certain conditions of work, properly rural conditions, or more especially agrarian, agricultural conditions.

之后,这位奴仆已经知道关于这隻老鼠所牵涉的东西,他以他的主人的鬼魂的魅影作为它的证明。实际上,主人的魅影对他说:我就是那隻小老鼠,我在我的田地巡视一圈,为了跟它说再见。我必须看到这些农耕的用具,因为这些基本的东西,我们始终依附著它们,比其他任何东西长久。仅有在巡迴这一圈后,我才能够替我解脱它们,等等,带着无数的考虑,关于跟死去的人及某些的工具的各种关系,跟工作的某些情况,适当来说是农村的情况,或是更特别的,农家及农业的情况。

I am taking this example to centre the gaze on an identification of being concerning two individual apparitions as obviously and as strongly to be distinguished from the one which would concern the being who, with respect to the narrating subject, had occupied the eminent position of master with this contingent little animal going one knows not where, going nowhere.

我正在举这个例子,将眼光集中在一种生命实存的认同,关于两个个人的魅影,明显而强烈地能够被区别,跟这个关系到生命实存不同,关于这位叙述的主体。他曾经佔据主任的这个杰出的位置,带有这个偶然的小动物,我们不知道它正要去哪里,或什么地方都不去。

There is something which, all by itself, deserves to be taken not simply to be (17) explained as a consequence, but as a possibility which deserves as such to be highlighted.

有某件东西,它单独就应该被认为不仅是当著结果来解释,而且当著一种可能性来解释,它本身应该值得被强调。

Does that mean that such a reference can engender anything other than the most complete opacity?

那难道意味着,这样一种提到能够产生任何不适最完全模糊的东西?

It would be a poor recognition of the type of elaboration, the order of effort that I am demanding from you in my teaching, to think that I could in any way content myself, even if one were to obliterate its limits, with a reference to folklore in order to
consider as natural the phenomenon of identification: because once we have recognized this as the basis of the experience, we know absolutely no more about it, precisely in the measure that this can only happen to those I am speaking to in the most exceptional cases.

假如我认为,我能够以任何方式得意洋洋,那将是一种差劲的体认这种建构,我正在根据我的教学,要求你们的这种努力的层次,即使我们想要抹除它的限制,提到民间传说,为了将认同的现象,认为是自然的。因为一旦我们已经体认出这个,作为经验的基础,我们绝对不会再知道关于它。确实是因为这个仅能发生在我正在跟他们言说的那些人身上,以最例外的情况。

It is always necessary to make a little reservation: you can be sure that this may perfectly well happen in one or other country area. That this cannot happen to you, you to whom I am speaking, is what settles the question: from the moment that this can no longer happen to you, you can understand nothing about it and, not being able to understand anything about it, do not believe that it is enough for you to connote the event under some chapter heading, which you may call with M Levy-Bruhl mystical participation, or whether with the same man you make it enter under the great whole of the pre-logical mentality, for you to have said anything that is of the slightest interest.

这总是需要的,稍微做些保留:你们能够确定,这很有可能会发生在某些乡下的地区。这不会发生到你身上,我正在跟你们言说,这就是解决问题的方法:从它不再发生到你们身上的这个时刻开始,你们对于它根本就无法了解。因为对它根本就不能够了解,你们并不相信,你们在某些章节的标题,你们能够指明这个事件。你们可称它为列文、布鲁尔的神秘的参与,或是无论是对于这相同的人,你们让它进入,在整体的前逻辑的精神之下,你们曾经说过任何东西,会具有丝毫的重要性。

It remains that what you can draw from it, make more familiar with the help of more attenuated phenomena, will not be for all that any more valuable because you will have started from an opaque foundation. You discover again here a reference of
(18) Apollinaire: “Mange tes pieds a la Sainte Menehould”, says the hero of the heroine of Mamelles de Tiresias somewhere to her husband.

问题仍然是,你们能够从它所获得的,凭借着力量变弱的现象的帮忙,变的更加熟悉。但尽管那样,它将不会变得更有价值,因为你们将会从一个模糊的基础开始。你们在此再一次发现一首阿保里奈尔的诗句:”Mange tes pieds a la Sainte Menehould”, 马美丽斯的女主角泰瑞西亚斯对于她的丈夫说。

It is a matter for us of grasping the relationship between this possibility which is called identification, in the sense that from it there arises something that exists only in language, and thanks to language, a truth to which this is an identification which is not at all distinguished for the farm labourer who comes to tell you the experience that I spoke to you about earlier; and for us who found the truth on A is A: this is the same thing because what will be the starting point of my discourse the next time, will be this: why is it that A is A is an absurdity?

对于我们的问题是,理解所谓的认同的这个可能性之间的关系,它的意义是,某件仅存在于语言里的东西产生。由于语言,对于这种真理的认同根本无法区别,对于农场的劳动者,他前来告诉你们我早先告诉你们的这个经验。我们在A当中找到真理的人就是A。这是同样的事情,因为下一次,我的论述的开始点将是这个:为什么A就是A,是一件荒谬的事情?

The strict analysis of the function of the signifier, in so far as it is through it that I intend to introduce for you the question of signification, starts with this: it is that if A is A, has constituted, as I might say, the condition of a whole era of thought of which the Cartesian exploration with which I began is the term – what one could call the theological era – it is no less true that linguistic analysis is correlative to the advent
of another era, marked by precise technical correlations among which is the mathematical advent, I mean the extended use of the signifier in mathematics.

能指的功用的严格的分析,通过它,我打算跟你们介绍意义的问题,开这里开始; 假如A 是 A, 我不妨说,它已经形成一整个时代的思想的情况。我用来开始的笛卡尔的探索的思想就是这个术语: 我们能够称这个神学的时代叫什么呢?这同样的真实的,语言的分析跟另外一个时代的来临息息相关,根据确实的技术的相关来标示,也就是数学的来临。我指的是能指在数学的延伸用途。

We can glimpse that if the A is A does not work, I would take further the problem of
identification. I indicate to you here and now that I will make my demonstration turn around the function of the one; and in order not to leave you completely in suspense and in order that perhaps each one of you would envisage beginning to formulate
something on the path of what I will say to you about it, I would (19) ask you to refer to the chapter in de Saussure’s Course in linguistics which ends on page 175. This chapter ends with a paragraph which begins on page 174 and I will read the following
paragraph of it:

我们能够瞥见,假如A是A 行不通,我将更进一步探讨认同的问题。我在此跟你们指示,我将我的证明环绕着这个「一」的功用,为了不要留下你们完全在悬疑当中,为了或许你们每一个将会拟想开始说明某件东西,在我将会跟你们谈论关于它的途径。我将会要求你们提到索绪尔的语言学通论的这个章节,在175页结尾的地方。这个章节结尾有一个段落,开始于174页,我将朗读以下的这个段落:

“Applied to units, the principle of differentiation can be stated in this way: the characteristics of the unit blend with the unit itself. In a tongue, as in any semiological system,” this would deserve a discussion, “whatever distinguishes one sign from the
others constitutes it.

「当它被运用到单元时,差别化的原则能够以这种方式陈述:单元的这些特性跟单元的本身混淆一块。在语言里,如同在语意的系统,」那将值得讨论的,「区别一个符号跟其他的符号不同的地方,形成它的特质。」

Difference makes character just as it makes value and the unit”. [English translation, page 121].In other words, unlike the sign – and you will see it confirmed provided you read this chapter – what distinguishes the signifier, is simply being what the others are not; that which, in the signifier, implies this function of the unit, is precisely to be simply difference. It is qua pure difference that the unit, in its signifying function, structures itself, constitutes itself.

差别形成特性,正如它形成价值与单元。(英译本121页)。换句话说,不像这个符号—你们将会看到它被证实,只要你们阅读这个章节—区别这个能指的东西,仅是跟其他能指不同的东西,在能指,这暗示着单元的这个功用。这确实是仅是差别。作为纯粹的差别,这个单元,在它的能指化的功用,建立它自己的结构,形成它自己。

This is not a single trait. In a way, it constitutes a unilateral abstraction concerning the synchronic relationship for example of the signifier. As you will see the next time, nothing is properly speaking thinkable, nothing in the function is properly speaking thinkable, unless it starts from the following which I formulate as: the one as such is the Other.

这并不一个单一的特征。以某种的方式,它形成一定单边的浓缩,譬如,关于这个能指的同时性关系。下一次,你们将会看出,适当来说,没有一样东西是可思想的。在这个功用,没有一样东西是可思想的,除非它从以下开始,我说明如下:这个一的本身就是大他者。

It is starting from here, from this fundamental structure of the one as difference that we can see appearing this origin from which one can see the signifier constituting itself, as I might say: it is in the Other (1’Autre) that the A of “A is A”, the big 0, as one says the great word, is released.

它从这里开始,从这个「一」的基本的结构开始,作为我们能够看出的差异,从这个起源出现。我们能够看出这个能指从这个起源形成它自己。我不妨说,就在这大他者,这个「A就是A」,这个大写的0被释放出来,如同我们说的这个伟大的字。

(20) From the processes of this language of the signifier, from here alone can there begin an exploration which is fundamental and radical of how identification is constituted. Identification has nothing to do with unification. It is only by distinguishing
it from it that one can give it, not only its essential accent, but its functions and its varieties.

从能指的这个语言的这些过程,仅是从这里,一种探索开始。这是基本而激进的探索:认为如何被形成? 认同跟统一完全没有任何关系。仅是凭借着区别它们,我们能够给予它,不但是它的基本强调,而是是它的功用及它的多样性。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 15

March 21, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 15
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

II
Seminar 3: Wednesday 29 November 1961

There are many others who sing and the question is not still demonstrated whether for all that they have a language. People have always spoken about this, the Shaman whose representation I have on a very beautiful little grey bird fabricated by the Kwakiutl of British Columbia carries on his back a sort of human image who communicates in a tongue which links him with a frog: the frog is supposed to be communicating to him the language of animals. It is not worth the trouble to do all this ethnography because, as you know St. Francis spoke to the animals: he is not a mythical personage, he lived at a epoch incredibly illuminated already in his time by the full light of history.

还有许多其他动物会歌唱,问题依旧没有被证实,是否它们有语言。人们总是谈论到这一点。在英属哥伦比亚的迪瓦奇所杜撰的一种美丽灰色小鸟,是召魂道僧的表征,他在他背上具有一种人类用语言沟通的的意象。这个语言将他跟青蛙连接在一块。青蛙被认为跟他沟通动物的语言。从事这一切都少数物种的研究并不值得,如同你们知道,圣法兰西斯能跟动物交谈。他并不是一位神秘人物。由于历史的充分光辉,在他生时,他生活在一个匪夷所思的启蒙的时代。

There are people who have made very pretty little paintings in order to show him to us on a rock, and one sees out at the very edge of the horizon the mouths of fish emerging from the sea in order to hear him which is the all the same, you have to admit, quite something.

有些人们曾经绘画过美丽的小图画,为了给我们显示他在一块岩石上,我们在地平线的边缘之外看出鱼的嘴巴,从海里出现,为了听他说话。你们必须承认,这仍然是某件值得注意的事情。

One might in this connection ask oneself in what tongue he spoke to them. This always has a meaning at the level of modern (13) linguistics, and at the level of psychoanalytic experience.

关于这一点,我们可能会问我们自己,他用怎样的语言跟他谈话。这总是具有某种意义,在现代语言学的层次,在精神分析经验的层次。

We have learned to define perfectly the function in certain beginnings of the tongue of what is called baby-talk, this thing which gets on the nerves of some people, me for example, this type of “gilly, gilly, what a lovely little baby”. This has a role which goes well beyond these manifestations which are noted for their inane dimension, the inaneness consisting on this occasion in the feeling of superiority of the adult.

我们已经学习确实定义所谓的婴儿谈话的语言的某种开始的功用,这种让某些人的神经扰乱不安的事情。以我个人而言,这种的「亲亲,美丽小可爱」。这扮演一个远超过以纯朴天真著名的展现的角色,在这个场合,这种纯朴天真在于感受到成人的优越性。

There is nevertheless no essential distinction between what is called baby-talk and, for example, a sort of tongue like that which is called pidgin namely these sorts of tongues constituted when two types of language articulation enter into relationship, the users of one considering it to be both necessary and their right to use certain signifying elements which belong to the other region, and this with the aim of using them in order to make penetrate into the other region a certain number of communications which are proper to their own region, with this sort of prejudice which is in question in this operation of getting across to them, of transmitting to them categories of a higher order.

可是,在所谓的婴儿谈话,与譬如所谓的人为语言之间,并没有重大的区别。换句话说,这些种类的语言会形成,当两种语言的表达产生关系。其中一种的使用者认为它既是需要,也是他们的权利,使用属于另外一个地区的某些的能指化的要素。目的是要使用它们,为了让某些属于它们自己地区的本体的沟通,贯穿到另外一个地区,带着这种受到置疑的偏见,在这种运作中传递给它们,将更高层次的范畴传递给它们。

These sorts of integration between one language region and another are one of
the fields of study of linguistics, deserving then as such to be taken up as a quite objective value thanks to the fact that there exist precisely, with respect to language, two different worlds in that of the child and in that of the adult.

在一种语言地区与另外一种语言地区的这些种类的合并,是语言学的研究的领域,它们本身应该值得从事,作为一种客观的价值。由于这个事实,关于语言,确实存在着两种不同的世界,小孩的世界与成人的世界。

We can all the less avoid taking it into account, we can all the less neglect it in that it is in this reference that we find the origin of certain rather paradoxical traits of the constitution of signifying batteries, I mean the very particular prevalence of
(14) certain phonemes in the designation of certain relationships which are called kinship, the not universal but overwhelming majority of phonemes PA and MA to designate, to furnish at least one of the modes of designation of the father and of the mother; this irruption of something which is only justified because of developmental elements in the acquisition of a language, namely pure speech events, this is only explicable precisely starting from the perspective of a relationship between two distinct spheres of language.

我们仍然无法避免要考虑到它,我们仍然不能个忽略它,因为在这方面,我们发现能指化锁链的形成的某些相当矛盾的特征的起源。我的意思是,在所谓的亲属的某些关系的指明,某些音素具有特别的优势。这个并非是普遍性,但是具有压倒性的大多数的音素,PA 与MA来指明,来供应至少是父亲与母亲的其中一种指明的模式。因为一种语言的学习的发展的要素,仅能自圆其说的某件东西的爆发,换句话说,纯粹的言说的事件,这仅能够被解释,确实是从语言的两种清楚的领域之间的关系的观点开始。

And you see there being outlined here something which is again the outline of a frontier. I do not think that I am innovating here because you know what Ferenczi
tried to begin to highlight under the title of “The confusion of tongues ….. 11 very specifically at this level of the verbal relationship between the child and the adult.

你们看出在此有某件东西被描绘轮廓,而且这是一种边界的轮廓。我并不认为,我在此正在创新,因为你们知道费伦奇尝试开始强调,在这个标题之下:「语言的混淆、、、明确地处于小孩与成人之间的文辞的关系的层次。」

I know that this long detour will not allow me to tackle today the function of the One, it will perhaps allow me to add to it, because when all is said and done all that is in question here is to clear the way, namely that you should not believe that where I
am leading you is a field which is exterior with regard to your experience, it is on the contrary the most internal field because this experience, the one for example which I evoked earlier specifically in the concrete distinction here between the other
and the Other, all we can do is go through this experience.

我知道,这个漫长的迂迴将不会容许我今天来处理这个「一」。它或许让我能够增加它,因为当一切都说都做了,在此受到置疑的一切,就是要清理这个途径。换句话说,你们不应该相信,我正在引导你们去的地方,是一个外在的领域,关于你们自己的经验。相反地,这是最内在的领域,因为这个经验,譬如,我早先召唤的这个领域,明确就是具体地区别他者与这个大他者。我们所能够做的,就是经历这个经验。

Identification, namely that which is able very precisely and also as intensely as possible, to imagine there being put under some sort of being of your relationships the substance of another, is something which can be illustrated to infinity in an “ethnographical” text because precisely it is on this that there (15) has been constructed, with Levy-Bruhl, a whole series of theoretical conceptions which are expressed under the term: pre-logical mentality, indeed later on mystical participation, when he was led to focus more especially on the function of identification the interest of what seemed to him to be the path to the objectification of the field he had taken as his own.

认同,换句话说,尽可能确实地,也尽可能强烈地能够想象另外的这个物质,被置放在你们的关系的存在里。这个某件东西能够被无穷尽地说明,以一种「种族学」的文本。因为确实地就在这一点,有一整个系列的理论的观念,曾经由列维、布鲁尔所建构。这些观念被表达,在前逻辑的精神的这个术语之下。确实在后来,他专注于神秘的参与,当他被引导更加特别地专注于认同的的功能。对他而言,似乎是探索这个领域的客体化的途径的興趣,他将这个领域视为是他自己的领域。

I think that here you know within what brackets, under what express reserve there can only be accepted relationships put under such a rubric. It is from something infinitely more common which has nothing to do with anything whatsoever which puts in question logic, or rationality, that one must start from in order to situate these facts (whether they are archaic or not) of identification as such.

我认为,在此你们知道在什么括弧里面,在怎样明显的储存之下,被摆放着如此一种组织之下的关系仅能够被接受。我们必须开始,从某件更加普遍的东西,它跟任何质疑逻辑,或理性的东西,没有丝毫关系。我们必须开始,为了定位认同本身的这些事实,( 无论它们过时与否)。

It is a fact which has always been known and can still be established for us when we address ourselves to subjects taken in certain contexts which remain to be defined, that these sorts of event – I am going to call them by terms which upset the barriers, which take things in a crude way in order to make it clearly understood that I do not intend here to stop at any dividing walls which are destined to obscure the primacy of certain phenomena – these phenomena of false recognition, let us say on the one hand of bi-location let us say of the other, flourish at the level of such experience, in the reports, in testimonies one hears.

这是一个总是为人所知的事实,依旧能够对我们证实,当我们自己处理在某些文本内容的主题,它们仍然有待定义。这些种类的事件—我将要根据这是术语称呼它们。这些术语扰乱这些阻碍物,以粗糙的方式看待事情,为了让它清楚地被了解,我在此并没有打算停在任何区隔的墙壁。它们注定会模糊某些现象的原初性—这些虚假体认的现象,让我们说,在一方面是他者的双重位置,在如此的经验的层次興盛,在那些报导,在我们听到的那些证词里。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Seminar IX :Identification 14

March 20, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 14
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

II
Seminar 3: Wednesday 29 November 1961

Let us rid ourselves of the problem by saying that it is her sense of smell which prevents it for her, and here we are only (9) rediscovering a classical indication, namely that the organic regression of the sense of smell in the case of man has a lot to do with his access to this Other dimension.

让我们解除这个难题,凭借着说,对于那母狗,那是她的嗅觉阻碍她。在此,我们仅是重新发现一个古典的指示,换句话说,在人类的情况,嗅觉的器官性倒退,跟他接近这个大他者的维度有很大的关系。

I am very sorry to appear, with this reference, to be re-establishing the cut between the canine species and the human species. I am saying this to signify to you that you would be completely wrong to believe that the privilege I give to language is some sort of pride which hides this sort of prejudice which would make of man precisely some sort of summit of being.

我很抱歉提到这个,似乎是在重新建立犬属类种与人类之间的差距。我说到这些,是为了跟你们指示,假如你们相信,我给予语言这个特权,是某种的骄傲隐藏这种偏见,将人解释成为确实就是万物之灵,那你们就完全错误了。

I would temper this cut by telling you that if my dog lacks this sort of possibility which was not separated out as autonomous before the existence of analysis which is called the capacity for transference, that does not at all mean that this reduces for her partner, I mean for myself, the emotionally expressive field of that which in the current sense of the term I call precisely human relations.

我将减缓这个差距,凭借告诉你们,假如我的狗欠缺这种可能性,在所谓的具有移情能力的精神分析的存在之前,不被分开作为自动自发的可能性。那丝毫并不意味着,对于这隻母狗的伴侣而言,我指的是我自己,这样会减少情感的表达领域,以目前的意义而言,我称之为人际关系。

It is manifest, in the behaviour of my dog, concerning precisely the reflux onto her own being of the effects of comfort, of positions of prestige, that a large part, let us say it, if not the totality of the register of what constitutes the pleasure of my own relationship, for example, with a woman of the world, is there completely fulfilled.

在我的狗的行为上,那是很明显的,确实关于舒适的反应,威望的各种立场,被反映到她自己的生命存在。有一大部分,容我们说它,即使不是全部的铭记我自己的关系的快乐的形成,譬如,我自己跟世俗的一个女人的关系,有一大部分完全被实现。

I mean that, when she occupies a privileged place like the one which consists in climbing onto what I call my cot, in other words the marriage bed, the sort of look with which she fixes me on such occasions, suspended between the glory of occupying a place whose privileged signification she situates perfectly well and the fear of the imminent gesture which is going to dislodge her from it, is not at all of a different dimension to what can be seen in the look of what I called, in a purely demagogical way, a woman of the (10) world; because if she does not have, in what concerns what can be called the pleasure of conversation, a special privilege,

我的意思是,当她佔据一个特权的位置,就像这隻母狗攀爬到我所谓的小床,换句话说,我的结婚时的床,在这些场合,她观看我的那种眼神,被悬置在这种洋洋自得与恐惧交加之间,洋洋自得是因为她佔据的这个位置,她明确地定位具有特权的意义,而恐惧交加则是,会有即将来临的动作,将她从床上拉开。这根本不是属于一种不同的维度,不同于我们能够看见的我所谓的世俗的女人的眼神,用通俗的方式来说。因为她并没有拥有一个特别的特权,跟所谓的谈话的快乐有关。

she has just the same look, when having taken off in a dithyramb about some film or other which appears to her to be the latest thing in technical achievement, she feels suspended over her a declaration from me that I was bored to the teeth with it, which
from the point of view of nihil mirari, which is the law of good society, already gives rise in her to the suspicion that she would have done better to let me speak first.

她刚刚拥有这个相同的眼神,当她已经开始滔滔不绝地侃侃而论,关于某部影片,对她而言,似乎是科技成就的最新发展。她一时不知所措,当我发出这个宣称,这部影片让我感到厌烦透顶。从处变不惊的观点而言,这是社会交际的规矩,这已经让她感到怀疑,她最好是让我先发言。

This by tempering, or more exactly by re-establishing the sense of the question that I am posing concerning the relationships of speech to language, is designed to introduce what I am going to try to separate out for you concerning what specifies a language as such; the tongue as it is called, in so far as, if it is the privilege of man, it is not immediately completely clear why it should be limited to him. I assure you that it is worthwhile spelling this out.

凭借着减缓,或更确实地说,凭借着重新建立我提出的这个问题的意义,关于言说与语言的关系。这个问题被设计要介绍,我正在尝试要跟你们区分的东西,关于是什么指明一种语言的本身,它被称之为这个语言。假如这是人的特权,它并没有立即豁然开朗,为什么这个特权应该限制于人。我告诉你们,把这个说明清楚是有价值的。

I spoke about a tongue: for example, it is not indifferent to note – at least for those who have not heard about Rousselot here for the first time, it is all the same very necessary that you should at least know how Rousselot’s reflexes are constituted – I allow myself to see right away the importance of something, which was absent from my earlier explanation about my dog, that I am speaking about something pharyngeal, something glottal, and then about something which was trembling all around here and there and therefore which is recordable in terms of pressure, of tension.

我谈论到一种语言,譬如,我们必须注意到,至少对于第一次在此,那些从来没有听过罗色洛的人,这仍然是非常需要的,你们至少应该知道,罗色洛的反思作用是如何被形成。我不妨立即谈论到某件东西的重要性,那是我早先解释我的母狗时,所欠缺的。我正在谈论关于某件喉咙的东西,某件声带的东西,然后关于某件到处颤抖的东西。因此,用压力的术语来说,那是可录音的张力。

But I did not speak at all about the effects of the tongue: there is nothing here (11) which produces a click for example, and still less which produces an occlusion;
there is undulation, sighing, breathing, there are all sorts of things which are close to it, but there is no occlusion.

但是,我根本不是谈论到语言的影响。在此没有东西产生一种悸动,譬如,尤其没有产生闭塞音的东西。是有些的起伏,叹息,呼吸,是有各种的类似它的东西,但是没有闭塞音的东西。

I do not want to go on about this too much today, this is going to push into the background things about the 1; too bad, one has to take the time to explain things. If I underline it in passing, you can be sure that it is not for the pleasure of it, it is because we will rediscover – and this we can only do retrospectively – its meaning. It is perhaps not an essential pillar of our explanation but this phase of occlusion will in any case take on its meaning at a particular moment; and the sketches of Rousselot, which perhaps you for your part will have consulted in the interval, since this will allow me to abbreviate my explanation, will perhaps be particularly expressive at that time.

今天,我并不想要继续太过于谈论这些。这将会推进入背景的东西,关于这个「我」,那就糟糕了。我们必须花费时间来解释事情。假如我偶然强调它,你们能够确定,那并不是为了它的快乐,那是因为我们将会重新发现它的意义—我们仅能反顾地这样做。那或许并不是我们的解释的一个重要的支撑,但是闭塞音的这个部分,无论如何,在特别的时刻,具有它的意义。罗色洛的那些描绘,或许对于你们而言,你们在休息时刻,曾去请教。这样,我才能够缩减我的解释。在那个时刻,它或许会特别地生动。

In order to properly image for you for now what the solution is, I am going to give you an example of it; the phonetician encounters in the same step – and it is not without reason as you are going to see – the phoneme PA and the phoneme AP, which
allows him to pose the principles of the opposition between the implosion AP and the explosion PA and to show us that the consonance of P is, as in the case of your daughter, to be mute. The meaning of P is between this implosion and this explosion.

为了适当地替你们形成这个意象,对于现在解决的方法是什么,我将要给予你们一个例子。语音学家在相同步骤所遭遇的—如同你们将会看出,这并不是没有理由—PA的音素跟AP的音素容许语音学家提出相对立的原则,处于AP的内爆与PA的外爆之间,并且跟我们显示:P的子音,如同在你们的女儿的情况,是沉默。P的意义处于这个内爆与外爆之间。

The P is heard precisely because it is not heard and this silent time in the middle, hold onto the formula, is something which, at the very phonetic level of the word, is what
might be called a sort of announcement of a certain point to which, as you will see, I will lead you after some detours. I am taking advantage simply of the passage through my dog, to indicate it to you in passing and to make you notice at the same (12) time that this absence of occlusives in the speech of my dog, is precisely what it has in common with a spoken activity which you know well and which is called singing.

这个P被听见,确实是因为它没有被听见,这个沉默的时间是在中间,融进这个公式,是某件,在这个字词的语音的层次,是所谓某个点的的一种宣告,如你们将会看出,我将会引导你们,经过一些迂迴之后。我仅是正在利用这个经过,我的狗,为了顺便跟你们指示,并且让你们同时注意到,这些闭塞音的欠缺,在我的狗的言说。那确实是它所拥有的,跟一个口说的活动相同。你们知道得很清楚,它被称为是唱歌。

If it often happens that you do not understand what the singer is saying, it is precisely because one cannot sing occlusives and I also hope that you will be happy to land on your feet again by thinking that everything is in order because in short my dog sings, which reinserts her into the concert of the animals.

假如这是时常发生的,你们并不了解歌唱者正在说什么,那确实是因为我们无法歌唱,闭塞音。我也希望,你们将会再一次快乐地站立起来,认为每一样事情都是井井有条,因为总之,我的狗在歌唱,这使她再一次跟融入动物的合。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordrpess.com