Identification 77

Identification 77
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

7.3.62 XII 141

Everything is ordered therefore in anything whatsoever at the
lower level, there is some of it or there is none of it, and this
cannot exist except in so far as there is constituted, by the
exclusion of the trait, the stage of anything whatsoever or of
what is valid like everything at the upper level.

每样东西因此被规范秩序在任何较低层面的东西。总是有一些,或根本就没有。这无非存在,除了凭借这个特征的排除,有任何东西的阶段被形成,或类似在上级层面有效的东西的阶段被形成。

It is therefore the subject, as one might have expected, who
introduces privation and this by the act of enunciating which is
essentially formulated as follows: “could it be that there is no
mamma?” (qu’il n’y ait), ne which is not negative, ne which is
strictly of the same nature as what one can call the expletive in
French grammar – “could it be that there is no mamma? Not
possible, nothing maybe”. Here we have the beginning of every
enunciating of the subject concerning the real.

如同我们可能会预期到底,因此就是这个主体介绍“剥夺”。而且是这种表述的行动的“剥夺”。这种表述基本上被说明如下:「没有妈妈是可能的吗?」 .” 没有ne“并不是否定,”没有ne“严格地属于跟我们在法语文法所谓的虚词的相同的性质。「没有妈妈是可能的吗?不是可能,而是或许什么都没有。」。在此,我们拥有每个主体的表述的开始,关于实在界。

In the first blank of the circle it is a question of preserving
the rights of the nothing, on top, because it is what creates
below the perhaps, namely the possibility. Far from being able
(14) to say as an axiom – and this is the stupefying error of the
whole abstract deduction of the transcendental – far from being
able to say that anything real is possible, it is only starting
from the not possible that the real takes its place.

在圆圈地第一道空白,问题是要保留空无的权利,在顶端,因为在底下创造这个“或许”,也就是这个可能性。这根本就不能够说是作为一个公理。这是超验的整个抽象的推理的令人惊吓的错误。它根本就不能够说,任何实在界的东西是可能的。它仅是从这个“不可能”开始,实在界的就位的“不可能”。

What the subject is looking for is this real qua precisely not
possible; it is the exception and this real exists of course.
What one can say, is that there is precisely not only the not
possible at the origin of any enunciating. But this can be seen
from the fact that it is from the enunciation of the nothing that
it begins.

主体所寻找到东西是这个实在界,确实是不可能的实在界。它是个例外,这个实在界当然是存在。我们所能够说的东西是,确实不但有这个“不可能”,在任何表述的起源。而且从这个事实能够看出:实在界开始于这个空无的表述。

This in a word is already guaranteed, clarified, in
my triple enumeration: privation, frustration, castration as I
announced we would be developing it the other day, and some
people are upset because I am not providing a place for the
Verwerfung: it is there beforehand, but it is impossible to start
from it in a deducible fashion.

总之,这是已经被保证,被澄清的东西,在我的三个列举里:剥夺,挫折,阉割。如同前天我宣告的,我们将会发展它。某些人们感到懊恼,因为我并没有提供位置给Verwerfung “除权弃绝”:它预先就在那里,但是用推论的方式,我们不可能从它那里开始。

To say that the subject is first
of all established as minus one, is indeed something in which you
can see that effectively, as one might expect, it is as Verworfen
that we are going to rediscover him, but in order to grasp that
this is true, we are going to have to make an enormous circuit.
This is what I am going to try to initiate now.

说主体首先被建立,作为负一(-1),确实是某件东西,在那里,你们能够明确地看见,如同我们可能预期的,作为“除权弃绝”,我们将会重新发现他。但是为了理解,这是真实的,我们将必须从事巨大的迂回。这是我现在将尝试开启的东西。

7.3.62 XII 142

In order to do it, I must unveil the battery I announced – and
you may well imagine that I tremble a little at this – and that I
bring out for you one of my turns which has of course been
prepared for a long time. I mean that if you look in the Rome
report you will already find its place highlighted somewhere. I
speak about the structure of the subject as that of a ring.

为了从事它,我必须揭示我宣布的这个炮弹—你们很有理由想像,我对于这个炮弹有点颤栗。我跟你们显示我的其中一个转折。当然,这个转折已经蕴酿很久。我的意思是,假如你们阅读我的罗马报告,你们将会已经发现它的位置在某个地方被强调。我谈论关于主体的结构,作为是环圈的结构。

Later on, I mean last year and in connection with Plato – and
(8) still as you see it is not unrelated to what I am debating
for the moment, namely the inclusive class – you have seen all
the reservations that I believed I had to introduce in connection
with the different myths of the Symposium, so intimately linked
to Platonic thinking concerning the function of the sphere.

后来,我的意思是去年,关于柏拉图—如同你们依旧看出,它跟我目前正在争论的东西,并非没有关联。也就是说,“包含”的类别。你们已经看见所有的保留,我相信我必须介绍的所有的保留,关于“会饮篇”的不同的神话。它们如此亲密相关,跟柏拉图的思想,关于球形的功能。

The sphere, this obtuse object, as I might say: you only have to
look at it to see it. It is perhaps a good shape, but it really
is stupid! It is cosmological of course. Nature is supposed to
show us a lot of it, not so much as all that when one looks
closely at it; and the ones that it shows us, we hold onto. For
example: the moon which nevertheless would be much better used,
if we were to take it as an example of a unary object. But let
us leave this to one side.

这个球形,这个圆形(迟钝)的客体,我不妨说:你们只要观看它,你们就会看见它。或许,这是一个很好的形状,但是它确实是迟纯的!当然,它是全宇宙。自然被认为跟我们显示很多关于它。甚至不是当我们仔细观看它时,而是它跟我们显示的那些迟钝,我们掌握的迟钝。譬如,月亮。假如我们想要将它当作是具有独异性客体的例子,我们仍然会更加贴切地使用它。但是让我们将这个放在一边。

This nostalgia for this sphere which with a phonuscule makes us
drag on in biology itself this metaphor of the Innen and Umwelt,
this is what is supposed to constitute the organism.
Is it altogether satisfying to think that in order to define the
organism we have to satisfy ourselves about the correspondence,
about the fitting together of this innen and this urn? No doubt
there is here a profound view; because it is indeed here in
effect that the problems lies, and already simply at the level at
which we are, which is not that of the biologist but of the
analyst of the subject.

对于这个球形的怀旧,用一种phonuscule,这个球形让我们在生物学的本身,缓慢前进,对于“内面”与“无意识”的这个隐喻。这被认为是组成有机体的东西。这完全令人满意吗?当我们认为,为了定义这个有机体,我们必须满足我们自己,关于这个对应,关于这个“内面:与”盆壶“的配合一块。无可置疑地,在此有一个深奥的观点。因为实际上,难题确实就在这里,难题已经在我们所在的这里。那并不是生物学家的难题,而是主体的分析家的难题。

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: