Identification 94

Identification 94
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.3.62 XIV 3

(5) Here is where there is established the common field in which
the object of desire is set up in the position that we know
already of course to be necessary for it even at the imaginary
level, namely a third position: the simple dialectic of the
relationship to the other qua transitive in the imaginary
relationship of the mirror stage, has already taught you that it
established the object of human interest as linked to his fellow,
the object o here with respect to this image which includes it,
which is the image of the other at the level of the mirror stage:
i of o.

在此,就是这个共同领域被建立的地方。在这个领域,欲望的客体被建立,在这个位置。我们当然已经知道这个位置是必要的,对于欲望的客体,即使是在想像的层次。换句话说,第三个位置:跟大他者的关系的简单辩证法,作为是镜像阶段的想像的关系的及物动词。它已经教导你们,它建立人类興趣的客体,作为跟他的同胞息息相关。在此的这个小客体,关于包括它的这个意象,那就是大他者的意象,在镜像阶段的层次,对于客体的认同。

But this interest in a way is only a form, it is the
object of this neutral interest around which even the dialectic
of M Piaget’s enquiry could be ordered, by putting in the
foreground this relationship that he describes as one of
reciprocity that he believes that he can join up to a radical
formula of the logical relationship.

但是这个興趣在某方面仅是一个形式。即使是皮亚杰的研究的秩序,都是环绕这个中立的興趣的客体。他将他描述为互惠的关系,放置在前景。他相信,这个互惠的关系,他能够连接到逻辑关系的强烈的公式。

It is from this
equivalence, from this identification to the other as imaginary,
that the ternarity of the emergence of the object is established;
it is only a partial, insufficient structure and therefore one
that we should find, finally, as deductive of the setting up of
the object of desire at the level where I am articulating it for
you here today.

就是从这个平等,从这个认同于大他者,作为想像界的大他者,客体的出现的第三位置被建立。它仅是一个部分,不充足的结构,因此是我们应该发现的结构,最后作为是欲望的客体的建立的推理。在这个层次,今天在此我正在跟你们表达它。

The relationship to the Other is not at all this
imaginary relationship founded on the specificity of the generic
form, because this relationship to the Other is specified by the
demand in so far as it makes emerge from this Other, which is the
Other with a big 0, its “essentialness”, as I might say, in the
establishment of the subject, or, to take up again the form that
is always given to the verb inter-esser its “inter-essentialness”
to the subject.

跟大他者的关系根本就不是这个想像的关系,以这个类别形式的明确性作为基础。因为跟大他者的关系被要求所指明。因为它让“它的基本要素”从这个大他者出现。这是具有一个大写O的大他者。我不妨说,在主体的建立里。或者,再次从事这个形式,总是给予这个动词的形式“inter-esser”“inter-essentialness”(互为基本要素),给予主体。

The field in question cannot therefore in any
way be reduced to the field of need and of the object which
(6) because of the rivalry of his fellows may at the limit be
imposed – because this would be the slope down which we would
find our recourse for the final rivalry – be imposed as object of
subsistence for the organism.

受到质疑的领域,因此无法以任何方式被化简成为需求与客体的领域。因为他的同胞的敌意,在这个限制,客体可能被赋加。因为这将是这个斜坡,我们发现我们诉诸于最后的敌意,就是这些斜坡。客体可能会被赋加作为是有机体的生存的客体。

This other field, which we are
defining and for which our image of the torus is made, is another
field, a field of the signifier, a field of the connotation of
presence and absence and where the object is no longer the object
of the subsistence, but of the ex-sistence of the subject. In
order to demonstrate it, it is indeed a matter in the final
analysis of a certain place of ex-sistence necessary for the
subject and that this is the function to which there is raised,
brought the small o of the first rivalry.

这个另外的领域,我们正在定义它,我们的圆环面的意象就是为它而建造。它是另外一个领域,能指的领域,存在与缺席的外延意义的领域。在那里,这个客体不再是生存的客体,而是主体的“外部-存在”。为了要证明它,追根究底,问题确实是对于主体所必要的“外部-存在”的某个位置。就是这个功能,这个最初的敌意的小客体,在那里被提出,被带来。

We have before us the path which we still have to take of this
mountain peak to which I led you the last time of the dominance
of the other in the setting up of the frustrating relationship;
the second part of the path should lead us from frustration to
this still to be defined relationship which as such constitutes
the subject in desire, and you know that is it only there that we
can properly articulate castration.

在我们们面前,我们拥有这个途径,我们依旧必须採取的途径,上次我引导你们到达的这个山的顶峰,关于大他者的支配的山的顶峰,当建立这个挫折的关系。这个途径的第二部分应该引导我们离开挫折,到达这个依据应该被定义的关系。作为这样一个关系,它形成欲望中的主体。你们知道,仅是在那里,我们能够恰当地表述阉割。

We will not know therefore
in the final analysis what this place of ex-sistence means until
this path has been completed. From now, we can, we ought even to
recall, but recall here to the philosopher who has no
introduction to our experience, this point which it is peculiar
to see so often shied away from in his own discourse, which is
that there is indeed a question, namely why it is necessary that
the subject should be represented – and I mean in the Freudian
sense represented by an ideational representative – as excluded
from the very field in which he has to act in what we could call
Lewinian relationships with others as individuals, that it is
necessary that at the level of structure we should manage to
(7) account for why it is necessary that he should be represented
somewhere as excluded from this field in order to intervene in
this field itself.

因此,追根究底,我们将无法知道,“外部-存在”的这个位置是什么意思?直到这条途径已经被完成。从现在,我们能够,我们甚至应该回想一下,但是在此的回想到这位哲学家,我们精神分析没有介绍到的哲学家。在他自己的辞说里,耐人寻味地,我们看见这个时刻如此经常地被避开。这确实是一个问题。也就是说,为什么主体应该被代表?我指的是弗洛依德的意义的代表,主体为什么应该用一个理型的的表象来代表?作为从这个领域被排除,他必须演出的领域,在我们所谓的“列文场域的跟别人的关系,作为个人”。在结构的这个层次,我们应该成功地诠释它,为什么他应该在某个地方被代表,作为是从这个领域被排除,为了介入这个领域的本身。

Because, after all, all the reasonings into
which the psycho-sociologist draws us in his definition of what I
have just called a Lewinian field are never presented without a
complete elision of this necessity that the subject should be,
let us say, in two topologically defined places, namely in this
field but also essentially excluded from this field, and that he
manages to articulate something and something which holds up.

因为毕竟,这位心理与社会学家引导我们进入的所有的推理,以他的定义,我们刚刚所说的列文场域。每当这些推理被呈现,总是会有完整的脱漏,对于这个必要性。我们不妨说,主体应该处于两个拓扑图形定义的位置。也就是在这个领域,而且基本上又是从这个领域被排除。主体成功地表达某件东西,某件自圆其说的东西。

Everything that in a thinking about the behaviour of man as
observable comes to be defined as learning and at the limit the
objectification of learning, namely montage, forms a discourse
which holds up and which up to a certain point takes into account
a whole lot of things, except for the fact that effectively the
subject functions, not with this simple use as I might say but in
a double use, which is all the same worth dwelling on and which,
however fleetingly it is presented to us, is tangible in so many
ways that it is enough, as I might say, to bend down to gather up
proofs of it. It is nothing other that I am trying to get you to
sense every time for example that I bring in incidentally the
traps of the double negation and that the “I do not know whether
I want to” is not understood in the same way I think as the “I
know that I do not want to”.

当我们思维人的行为作为是可观察的每样东西,逐渐被定义作为学习,在极限,学习的客观化。也就是蒙太奇,形成一种自圆其说的辞说。直到某个时刻,它都考虑到完整的东西,除了这个事实:主体有效地发挥功能,不是如我所说的这个简单的用途,而是处于双重的用途。这个双重的用途始终值得详述。无论它被呈现给与我们是多么的瞬间即逝,它在很多方面是具体的,我们只要俯视检拾它的证据就足够了,我不妨这样说。每次我正在尝试让你们理解的,实实在在就是这个。譬如,我偶然地带进双重否定的这些陷阱。“我不知道是否我想要”与我认为“我知道我并不想要”的理解并不一样。

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: