Identification 75

Identification 75
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

17.1.62 VIII 1
Seminar 8: Wednesday 17 January 1962

7.3.62 XII 139

With what I have just told you, I have no need to put the accent
on the following: the fact is that this operates already before
(9) the subject knows how to count properly. In any case,
nothing implies that he has a need to count the circuits of what
he is repeating very far because he repeats it without knowing
it. It is no less true that the fact of repetition is rooted in
this original unary, which unary as such is tightly coupled to
and co-extensive with the very structure of the subject in so far
as it is thought of as repeating in the Freudian sense.

由于我刚刚告诉你们的东西,我没有需要强调以下:事实上,在主体知道如何合宜计算之前,这个原初的独异性就已经运作。无论如何,没有一件东西暗示:主体有需要计算这些迴圈,他深入重复的东西的迴圈。因为他重复它,但是并不知道它。同样真实的是,重复这个事实,根源于这个原初的独异性。独异性的本身更主体的这个结构息息相关,而且成为共同系数。因为它被认为是弗洛依德的意义的重复。

What I am going to show you today, through an example, and with a
model that I am going to introduce, what I am going to show you
today, is the following: it is that there is no need for him to
know how to count for one to be able to say and demonstrate the
constituting necessity of his function as subject that he should
make an error in the count. There is no need for him to know nor
even to try to count for this error of counting to be
constitutive of him as subject: as such it is error.

今天我正要跟你们显示的东西,凭借一个例子,用我将要介绍的一个模式。今天,我正要跟你们显示的东西如下:那是因为主体没有需要知道如何计算,这样人们才能够说与证明他作为主体的功能的结构上的必要性。他应该在这个计算里犯下错误。他没有必要知道,甚至也没有必要尝试计算,为了让计算的这个错误成为他作为主体的结构:作为主体,计算就是错误。

If things are as I am telling you, you can be sure that this
error may last a long time on such a basis, and this is quite
true. It is so true that it is not alone on the individual that
it brings its effect to bear. It brings its effect to bear on
the most radical characters of what is called Thinking.
Let us take for a moment the theme of Thinking, about which it
would be proper all the same to use some prudence; you know that
on this point I do not lack it, it is not all that sure that one
can validly refer to it in a fashion which may be considered as a
(10) properly speaking generic dimension.

假如事情是如同我正在告诉你们的样子,你们能够确定,根据这样的基础,这个错误可能延续很久时间。这是完全真实的。这是如此的真实,以致它不单是在个人身上,它产生它相关的影响。它在所谓的“思想”的即使是最强烈的特性,也产生它相关的影响。
让我们探讨一下“思想”的这个主题。关于这个主题,我们仍然恰当地使用某个谨慎。你们知道,在这点,我并没有欠缺谨慎。我并没有确定,我们能够正确地提到它,用恰当来说,可能会被认为是整体的维度。

Let us take it
nevertheless as such: the thinking of the human species.
It is quite clear that it is not for nothing that I have advanced
more than once, in an inevitable fashion, towards putting in
question here, since the beginning of my discourse this year, the
function of class and its relationship with the universal, to the
point even that it is in a way the reverse and the opposite of
all this discourse that I am trying to bring to a conclusion
before you.

让我们仍然就它的本身而论:人类种族的思想。显而易见地,这并非徒劳,我曾经不仅一次提出,用无可避免的方式,在今年的我的辞说的开始,朝向在此质疑分类的功能,以及分类跟普遍化的关系。我甚至质疑,分类是所有这个辞说的逆转与对立。我将要在你们面前,尝试获得结论。

In this connection, simply remember what I was trying to show you
in connection with the little exemplary dial on which I tried to
re-articulate before you the relationship of the universal to the
particular and of affirmative and negative propositions
respectively.

关于这点,请你们仅是回忆一下我以前跟你们显示的东西,关于这个小小的作为例子的刻度盘。根据这个刻度盘,我尝试在你们面前重新-表达普偏性与特殊性的关系,分别就肯定与否定的命题的关系。

Unity and totality appear here in the tradition as
solidary, and it is not by chance that I always come back to it
in order to shatter the fundamental category: unity and totality
at once solidary, linked to the other in this relationship that
one could call a relationship of inclusion, totality being
totality with respect to units, but unity being what founds
totality as such by drawing unity towards another meaning,
opposed to the one that I distinguish of it, of being the unity
of a whole.

统合与整体性在传统这里,作为团结。并非偶然地,我总是回到它,为了粉碎这个基本的范畴:统合与整体性既是团结,在这个关系上,跟他者团结,我们所谓的包容的关系整体性是跟各单位的整体性。但是统合则是作为整体性自身的基础的东西,凭借将统合吸引朝向另外一个意义,跟我区别它的这个一对立的意义。统合是作为整体性的统合。

It is around this that there is pursued this
misunderstanding in what is called the logic of classes, this
age-old misunderstanding of extension and intension which it
seems tradition effectively has always made more of, even if it
is true, taking things in the perspective for example of the
middle of the XlXth century, in the writings of a Hamilton, even
if it is true that it has only been clearly articulated from
(11) Descartes on and that the logic of Port-Royal, as you know,
is modelled on the teaching of Descartes.

环绕这个统合,所谓的分类的逻辑的东西的误解被追寻。长久以来,对于延伸与内含的误解。似乎,传统有效地总是拥有这样的误解,即使它是真实的,用19世纪中叶的观点作为例子来看待事情,在哈密尔顿的著作里,即使这是确实的,从笛卡尔开始,它仅是清楚地被表达。众所周知,波特 罗伊的延伸与内含的逻辑,就是模拟笛卡尔的教学。

What is more this is
not true; because this opposition between extension and
comprehension is there for a long time, since Aristotle himself.
What one can say, is that it causes for us, as regards the
handling of classes, difficulties which are always more
unresolved, hence all the efforts that logic has made to
transport the core of the problem elsewhere: into propositional
quantification for example.

而且,这并非真实。因为延伸与理解之间的对立,长久以来就在那里。自然亚里斯多德自己以来。我们所能够说的内容是,关于分类的处理,它引起我们的困难,这些困难总是更加无法解决。因为逻辑所曾经从事的努力,将难题的核心转移到别的地方:譬如,转移进入命题的量化。

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

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: