Archive for April, 2015

Identification 128

April 28, 2015

Identification 128
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

21.3.62 XIV 173

11.4.62 XVII 213

Here we are then in the presence of two types of circle which
from this point of view moreover are the same, which do not
define an inside and an outside. I would point out to you
incidentally that, if you cut the torus successively following
one and the other, you will still not manage for all that to make
what it is a matter of making and what you nevertheless obtain
immediately with the other type of circle 1 (p 10), the first one
that I drew for you, namely two pieces.

在此我因此处理两种圆圈的存在里。而且,从这个观点,这两种圆圈是相同的,它们并没有定义内部与外部。我想要顺便地跟你们指出,假如你们连续地切割这个圆环面,一个跟随另外一个,尽管那样,你们将依旧没有成功地形成要形成的东西,以及你们立即获得的东西,用另外一种圆圈,我跟你们绘画的第一个圆圈,也就是这两个圆圈。

On the contrary the
torus not only remains well and truly entire, but it was, the
first time that I spoke to you about it, a flattening out that
resulted from it which allows you to symbolise the torus
eventually in a particularly convenient fashion as a rectangle
which you can, by pulling a little, spread out like a skin pinned
down at the four corners, to define the properties of
correspondence of these edges one to the other, of correspondence
also of its vertices,

相反地,这个圆环面不仅始终实实在在是完整的,而且它以前就是完整的,我第一次跟你们谈论关于它。因为它而造成的一个偏平的环圈。它让你们最后能够象征这个圆环面,用一个特别方便的方式,作为一个长方形。你们能够凭借稍微拉扯一下,将这个长方形展开,就像皮革被钉在四个角落,为了定义这些边缘的一致性的特性,一个边缘跟另外一个边缘,它的尖端的一致性的特性。

the four vertices which unite at a point
and to have in this way, in a fashion much more accessible to
your ordinary faculties of intuition, the means of studying what
happens geometrically on the torus, namely that there will be one
of these types of circle which will be represented by a line like
this one another type of circle by lines like this representing
two points posed, defined in a preliminary fashion as being
equivalent on what are called the edges of the spread-out
flattened surface, as I might say, even though of course it is
not a real flattening out, a flattening-out as such being
(15) impossible because we are not dealing with a surface which
is metrically identifiable to a plane surface, I repeat purely
metrically, not topologically.

在某个点结合,并且以这个方式拥有的这四个尖端,用的方式让你们的普通的直觉的能力更加可以接近。这个工具用来研究圆环面的几何学发生的事情。换句话说,将会有其中一个圆的类型。它将会被代表,用像这个的一条线,另外一种圆圈,像这个的线条,代表被提出的两个点。用初级的方式定义,作为相等于所谓的被展开的扁平化的表面的边缘,不妨这样说。即使当然它并不是真正的扁平化。作为这样的扁平化是不可能的,因为我们并不在处理一个表面。这个表面长度方面认同于平面的表面,我重复一下,纯粹的长度,而不是拓扑图形。
11.4.62 XVII 213

Where does all this lead us?
The fact that two sections of this kind are possible, with
moreover the necessity of the one or the other being regrouped
without fragmenting the surface in any way, leaving it whole and
entire, leaving it in one piece, as I might say, this is enough
to define a certain type of surface. Not all surfaces are of
this type; if you carry out in particular a section like that on
a sphere, you will always only have two pieces whatever the
circle may be.

所有这一切引导我们到哪里?这种圆环面对两个部分是可能的,而且有必要让其中一个或另外一个被重新聚合,而没有让表面成为碎片,让它保持完完整整,让它在一个圆环面里,我不妨说,这是足够定义某种的表面。并不所有的表面都属于这种。假如你们特别执行像那样的一个部分,在一个球形,你们将总是拥有两个圆环面,无论那个圆形是什么。

This in order to lead us to what?
Let us make no longer a single section but two sections on the
single base of the torus. What do we see appearing? We see
appearing something which undoubtedly is going to astonish us
immediately, namely that if the two circles are regrouped, what
is called the field of the symmetric difference well and truly
exists. Can we say, for all that, that the field of intersection
exists? I think that this figure, as it is constructed, is
sufficiently accessible to your intuition for you to clearly
understand immediately and right away that there is no question of it

这个,为了引导我们到哪里?
让我们不再做单一的部分,而是两个部分,在圆环面对单一的基础。我们看见什么出现?我们看见某件东西出现。无可置疑地,这个某件东西立即将会让我们大为惊奇。换句话说,假如这两个圆圈重新被聚合,所谓的均称的差异的领域,实实在在是存在。我们能够说,尽管那样,交会的这个领域存在吗?我认为这个图形,当它被建构时,它充分地被接近,被你们的直觉接近,为了让你们清楚地立即而当下理解:这是不可能的。

11.4.62 XVII 214
Namely that this something which might be the intersection, but
which is not one and which, I am saying, for the eye because of
course there is no question for a single instant of this
intersection existing, but which for the eye is, as I have
presented it to you in this way on this figure as it is drawn,
would be found perhaps somewhere here (see the schema) of this
field perfectly continuous in a single block, in a single piece
with this field here which could analogically, in the crudest
fashion for an intuition precisely accustomed to base itself on
things which happen uniquely on the plane, to correspond to this
external field where we could define, with respect to two
Eulerian circles cutting one another, the field of their
negation, namely if here we have the circle A and here the circle
B, here we have A’ as a negation of A and we have here B’ as a
negation of B, and there is something to be formulated concerning
their intersection at these eventual external fields.

换句话说,这个可能是交会的某件东西,但是它并不是一个交会。我正在说,对于眼睛,因为当然不可能有单一的瞬间,对于存在的这个交会,但是对于眼睛,它是交会。如同我以这种方式呈现它给予你们,针对这个图形,依照它所被画。它将会被找出,或许这个领域的这里的某个地方(参照基模),在单一的区块里,它完美地连续一块。用这个领域的单一的区块。用最简陋的方式,让确实已经习惯的直觉,它能够类比地将它的基础放在这些事情上,这些独特地发生在平面的事情上。为了对应这个外部的领域。在那里,我们能够定义,关于这两个尤勒的圆圈,互相切割,它们的否定的领域。换句话说,假如这里,我们拥有圆形A,在此圆形B,在此我们用用圆形A‘,作为A的否定,我们拥有圆形B’ 作为的B的否定。有某件东西能够被说明,关于它们的交换,在这些最后的外部的领域。

Here we see illustrated then in the simplest fashion by the
structure of the torus the fact that something is possible,
something which can be articulated as follows: two fields cutting
one another being as such able to define their difference qua
symmetric difference, but which are nonetheless two fields about
which one can say that they cannot unite and that neither can
they overlap one another, in other words that they cannot serve
either as a function of “either…, or…”, of union, nor as a
function of multiplication (intersection) by itself.

在此,我们看见这个事实被绘图说明,以最简单的方式,用圆环面的结构:某件东西是可能的。某件能够被表达的东西,如下:两个领域互相切割,它们自身能够定义它们的差异,作为均称的差异。但是它们仍然是两个领域。关于这两个领域,我们能够说,它们无法统合,它们也不能够互相重叠。换句话说,它们无法充当,“非此则彼”的功能,也不能够充当“统合”的功能。也不能够作为它自身的加倍(交会)的功能。

They can
literally not be raised to a higher power, they cannot be
reflected one by the other and one in the other; they have no
intersection, their intersection is exclusion from themselves.
The field where one would expect intersection is the field where
you leave behind what concerns them, where you are in the
non-field. This is all the more interesting in that for the
representation of these two circles we can substitute our
inverted eight of a little while ago.

它们实质上无法被提升到更高的次元。它们无法被反映,一个被另外一个反映。它们没有交会,它们的交会从它们身上被排除。我们想要期望的交会的这个领域,就是这个领域。在那里,你们留下跟它们相关的东西,在那里,你们处于非-领域。这是更加有趣的东西,因为对于这两个圆圈的代表,我们能够替换不久之前,我们的倒转的“8”。

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

seminar 16(12)

April 27, 2015

seminar 16(12)

From an other to the Other
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

20.11.68

(26) No doubt, when it is articulated in this way this involves a claim about the
frustration o f the labourer. This involves a certain position of the “I” in the system,
when this “I” is in the place of the worker, which is more and more generally the case.
That this involves that is strange. This is what should be said. Because it is only the
consequences of a perfectly well defined discourse, into which the labourer inscribes
himself as a labourer, as “I”. I said “I” here.

无可置疑,当它以这个方式被表达,这牵涉到一个宣称,关于劳工的挫折。这牵涉到这个“我”在系统里的某个立场,当这个“我”处于工作者的位置。通常越来越是这种情况。这牵涉到劳工的位置是奇怪的。那就是什么应该被说的东西。因为那仅是非常完善定义的辞说的结果。劳工将自己铭记到这个辞说里,作为一位劳工,作为“我”。我在此说的是“我”。

Notice that I did not say subject although
I spoke about the capitalist subject. I am going slowly because after all I will come
back to it, we will look at it again – except I hope those who leave in the middle! –
and you will see that it is not for nothing that I am saying here “subject”, and that
there I say “I”. Because that will be found at a certain level, and at a level that must
have functioned for a long time because it is that of my graph that I constructed more
than ten years ago before an audience of donkeys. They still have not found where
the “I” is on this ^raph! So then I will have to explain it for them. In order to explain
it for them, I must prepare. We labour. It is work. Let us hope that I can tell you
before the end how the labour, for us, at the level of this discourse, of the teacher, is
situated. So then it is strange that this involves the idea of frustration, with the
complaints which follow, the little reconstructions that are distinguished under the
name of revolution. It is strange. It is interesting.

请你们注意,我并没有说是“主体”,虽然我谈论到资本主义的主体—我将要缓慢地进行。毕竟,我将回到它。我们将再次看待它—除了我希望那些留在中间的人们—你们看见,我在此说“主体”,并非白费力气。在那里,我说是“我”。因为那将在某个层次被找到。在某个长期以来一定曾经发挥功能的层次。因为那时我的图形的层次,十多年前,我建构的图形,在驴子般的听众面前。他们依旧还没有在这个图形里,发现这个“我”位在哪里。所以,我将必须跟他们解释它。为了跟他们解释它,我必须准备。我们都是劳工。那就是工作。让我们希望,我能够在结束之前告诉你们,对于我们,这个劳工在这个辞说的层次,在老师的层次,这个劳工被定位在哪里。所以,奇怪的是,这牵涉到挫折的观,具有随后的各种抱怨,这些小小的建构,在革命的名义下被区别出来。这是奇怪的,这是有趣。
But I cannot from now on not articulate that at this precise point the conflictual
dimension is introduced. It is difficult to designate it otherwise. I said that it was
strange, and that it is interesting. That ought at least to encourage you to recognise it,
no? I will designate it by this strange word, not less interesting but strange, which is
the word truth. You know, the truth is not grasped just like that, huh! Of course I
introduced it, like that, at one time, in its junction whose topology I tried to draw, in
its junction with knowledge, because it is difficult to speak about anything whatsoever
in psychoanalysis without introducing this junction. This clearly shows the prudence
that is necessary because God knows what has come back to me in this connection in
terms of the idiocies that are doing the rounds!

但是从现在开始,我无法不表达,在这个确实的时刻,这个冲突的维度被介绍。否则指明它很困难。我说那是奇怪的,那是有趣的。至少那应该鼓励你们体认它,不是吗?我将指明它,凭借这个“奇怪”的字词,不仅有趣而且奇怪。那就是“真理”的字词。你们知道,真理并不是像那样被理解!当然,在某个时刻,我介绍它,像那样,在我尝试画出它的联接的拓扑图形,在它跟知识的联接。因为在精神分析,每当我们谈论任何事情,我们很难不介绍这个联接。这清楚地显示必要的谨慎,因为天晓得是什么回到我这里,关于这个,用正在绕来绕去的那些白痴般的术语。

20.11.68 II 10
We are going to try to approach it a little bit more closely and to see how the capitalist
reality does not have such bad relationships with science. It can function like that3 in
any case for some time yet, to all appearances. I would even say that it
accommodates itself to it not badly at all. I am speaking about reality, am I not? I did
not speak about the Real. I spoke about what is constructed about the capitalist
subject, what is generated from the complaint fundamentally made about the
recognition – otherwise the discourse of Marx has no sense – called surplus value.
This is properly the scientific incidence into the order of something that is the order of
the subject. Obviously, at a certain level this does not accommodate itself badly at all
(27) to science. People send into the spatial orbs objects that are quite well shaped as
well as being habitable.

我们正要尝试稍微更加仔细地接近它,并且看出,资本主义的现实跟科学的关系并没有那么糟糕。无论如何,外表上,经过一段时间,它能像那样地发挥功能。我甚至说,资本主体的现实跟科学还相处得不错。我正在谈论到现实,不是吗?我并没有谈论到实在界。我谈论到所被建构的东西,关于资本主义的主体。从这个抱怨产生的东西是什么?关于这个体认基本上所做的抱怨—否则,马克思的辞说没有意义—所谓的剩余价值。恰当来说,这是科学意味,进入属于主体的秩序的某件东西的秩序。显而易见地,在某个层次,资本主义的现实跟科学的关系,并没有处得那么糟糕。人们将那些客体送入空间的轨道,形状良好而且可以住人的客体。

But it is not sure that at a closer level, at the one where there
is generated revolution and the political forms that it generates, something is entirely
resolved on the plane of this frustration that we have designated as being the level of a
truth. No doubt the labourer is the sacred locus of this conflictual element which is
the truth of the system. Namely, that a knowledge which holds up all the more
perfectly because it is identical to its own perception of being, is torn apart
somewhere. So then let us take this step that is allowed us by the factt that what is at
stake without any doubt is the same substance. Let us feel what is involved in the
structural stuff and let us make our scissors’ cut. It is knowledge that is at stake. It is
in relation to it, in its scientific form, that I have just given a prudent appreciation
about what is involved in the relations, in the two realities that are opposed in our
political world.

但是这并不确定,在更加靠近的层次,在革命被产生的层次,它产生的政治的形式,某件东西完全被解救,在挫折的这个层次。我们指明这个挫折作为是处于真理的层次。无可置疑,劳工是这个冲突的元素的神圣的轨迹,那就是系统的真理。换句话说,更加完美地自圆其说的知识,因为它认同于它自己对于生命实存的感觉。这个知识在某个地方被撕裂。所以,让我们採取这个步骤,我们被容许採取的步骤。无可置疑地,岌岌可危的东西正是相同的物质。让我们感觉在这个结构的材料所被牵涉的东西,让我们用我们的剪刀切割。这就是岌岌可危的知识。就是跟这个知识的关系,用科学的形式,我刚刚给予一个谨慎的赏识,关于这些关系所被牵涉的东西,在这两个现实,在我们的政治的世界,处于对立的两个现实。

Knowledge, even though earlier I seemed to begin my discourse from it, knowledge is
not labour. It is worth labouring at sometimes but you can get it without labour.
Knowledge, at the extreme point, is what we call the price. The price is sometimes
incarnated in money, but just as much in knowledge! It is worth money and more and
more so. This is what ought to enlighten us! The price of what? It is clear, the price
of the renunciation of enjoyment. Originally it is through this that we begin to know a
little bit. No need to labour for that. It is because labour implies the renunciation of
enjoyment that every renunciation of enjoyment is only accomplished through labour.
An illumination like that comes to you provided you know how to hold yourself back,
or to contain yourself as I alluded to it the last time to define thinking.
知识,即使早先我似乎就从知识开始我的辞说,知识并不是劳工。有时,知识是值得劳苦获得。但是你们能够不经劳苦地获得知识。在极端时刻,知识就是我们所谓的价格。这个价格有时用金钱具体表示。但是同样用知识具体表示!知识是值得金钱,而且越来越是这样。这就是应该让我们恍然大悟的地方! 知识是什么的价格?显而易见地,欢爽的放弃的价格。原先,就是凭借这点,我们开始稍微知道。我们没有必要为了知识而劳苦。因为劳苦暗示着放弃欢爽。只有在劳苦工作时,欢爽的放弃才会被完成。只要你们知道如何节制你们自己,或只有你们控制自己,如同我上次提到它,为了定义思想,你们就会获得像那样的启明。

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

Identification 128

April 27, 2015

Identification 128
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

11.4.62 XVII 211

When one of my obsessionals, quite recently again after having
developed all the subtlety of the science of his exercises with
respect to feminine objects to whom, as is common among other
obsessionals, he remains attached, as I might say, by what one
can call a constant infidelity: at once the impossibility of
leaving any of these objects and the extreme difficulty of
(12) maintaining them all together, and that he adds that it is
quite clear that in this relationship, in this so complicated
relationship which requires this high degree of technical
subtlety, as I might say, in the maintaining of relationships
which in principle must remain outside one another, impermeable
as one might say to one another and nevertheless linked, that, if
all of this, he tells me, has no other purpose than to leave him
intact for a satisfaction which he himself here comes to grief
on, it must therefore be found elsewhere, not just simply in a
future that is always put off, but manifestly in another space
since as regards this intactness and its purpose he is incapable
when all is said and done of saying at what this could end up in
terms of satisfaction.

当我的一位妄想症者,显示他的运用的科学的微妙后,关于女性的客体。他始终保持连系,这是其他的妄想症者所共通的,跟我们所谓的不断地不忠实:一方面不可能离开任何的这些客体,另一方面,又遭遇极端的困难,要将它们维持在一块。他补充说:显而易见,在这个关系,在这个如此复杂的关系,要求这个高程度的技术的微妙,不妨这样说。用来维持这些关系。原则上,这些关系必是始终互相保持在外面,不妨说说,彼此无法互相弥漫。可是,又联结一块。他告诉我,假如所有这一切没有其他目的,除了让他保持完整作为满足,他自己对这样的满足,感到痛苦。因此,它必须在别的地方被找到,而不仅是在未来被找到。未来总是被拖延,但是明显是在另外一个空间。因为关于这个完整与其目的,当一切都说都做了,他无法说,用满足的术语,他结果能够做些什么?

We have all the same here in a tangible way, something which can
pose for us the question of the structure of desire in the most
day-to-day fashion.

在此用具体的方式,我们仍然拥有某件东西。这个东西能够替我们提出欲望的结构的这个问题,以最日常的方式。

Let us come back to our torus and let us inscribe on it our
Eulerian circles. This is going to necessitate – I apologise for
it – a tiny little twist which is not, even though it might
appear so to someone who comes into my seminar today for the
first time, a geometrical twist – it will be that perhaps right
at the end but very incidentally – which is properly speaking
topological. There is no need for this torus to be a regular
torus nor a torus on which we could make measurements. It is a
surface constituted according to certain fundamental
relationships that I am going to be led to remind you of, but
because I do not want to appear to go too far from what is the
field of our interest I am going to limit myself to things that I
have already initiated and which are very simple.

让我们回到我们的圆环面,让我们在圆环面上面铭记我们的尤勒圆圈。这将是有必要的—我对此抱歉—有必要从事小小的改变。对于今天首次前来我的研讨班的某个人—这个改变并不是几何图形的改变,虽然看起来是这样。或许就在结束的地方,但是非常偶然地,恰当来说,那是拓扑图形的改变。没有必要让这个圆环面成为是规律的圆环面,也不需要成为是我们能够用来测量的圆环面。这个表面的形成,依照某些的基本的关系,我将要被引导提醒你们,但是因为我并不想要显得太过分离开我们感到興趣的领域,我将要限制我自己,仅是探讨我已经开启的东西,那些东西非常简单。

As I pointed out to you: on a surface like this, we can describe
this type of circle which is the one that I have already connoted
(13) for you as reducible, one which if it is represented by a
little string which passes at the
end through a buckle, I can by
pulling on the string reduce to a
point, in other words to zero. I
pointed out to you that there are
two other kinds of circle or loop
whatever size they may be because
for example this one here could
just as well have that shape there:

如同我跟你们指出,在一个像这样的表面,我们能够描述这种圆圈。那就是我已经跟你们指明作为可化简的圆圈。假如它用一个小环圈来代表,这个小环圈在通过环扣的末端通透。我能够凭借拉扯这个环圈,将它化简成为一个点。换句话说,将它化简成为零。我跟你们指出,有两个其他种类的圆圈,或圈套,无论它们是什么大小。因为譬如,这个环圈能够同样用有那里的那个形状:

(1)
That means a circle which goes through the hole whatever may be
its more or less tight more or less loose shape. This is what
defines it: it goes through the hole it passes to the other side
of the hole. It is represented here in dots while the 2 is
represented in full.

这意味着一个圆圈,这个圆圈穿过这个空洞,无论它的形状是相当紧或相当鬆。这就是定义它的东西:它穿过它经过的这个空洞,到达空洞的另外一边。它在此被代表,用这些小点,当这个“2”完整地代表。

This is what that symbolises: this circle
is not reducible, which means that if you suppose it to be
realised by a string still passing through this little arch which
would allow us to tighten it we cannot reduce it to something
like a point; whatever its circumference may be, there will
always remain at the centre, the circumference of what one could
call here the thickness of the torus.

这就是那个象征的东西:这个圆圈并不是可以化简的。那意味着,假如你们认为它被一个环圈说实践,这一个环圈依旧通过这个小拱门。这个拱门将让我们能够锁紧它,我们无法将它化简成为像一个点的某件东西。无论它的圆周有多少,这个圆周将始终在中央,我们在此所谓的圆环面对厚度的圆周。

If from the point of view
which interested us earlier, namely the definition of an inside
and an outside, this irreducible circle shows from one side a
particular resistance, something which with respect to other
circles confers on it an eminent dignity, on this other point
here suddenly it is going to appear singularly deprived of the
properties of the preceding one; because if you materialise this
circle that I am talking to you about for example by a cut with a
pair of scissors, what will you obtain?

假如从早先让我们感到興趣的这个观点。换句话说,内部与外部的定义,这个无法化简单圆圈从一边显示特殊的抗拒,关于其体的圆圈,某件东西在它身上给予一个显著的尊严。在这个另外的点,在此,突然地,它将独异地看起来被剥夺先前的那个圆环面的这些属性。因为假如你们将这个圆圈当成物质,譬如,我正在跟你们谈论的这个圆圈,使用一把剪刀作为切割。你们将获得什么?

Absolutely not, as in
the other case, a little piece which disappears and then the
remainder of the torus. The torus will remain entirely intact in
the form of a pipe or of a sleeve if you wish.

绝对不是一小块,如同在另外的一个情况。这一小块消失,然后剩余的圆环面也消失。这个圆环面将始终保持完整,用管子或袖子的形状,随你们高兴。

If you take on the other hand another type of circle, the one
that I already spoke to you about, the one which does not go
through the hole, but goes around it, this one finds itself in
the same situation as the preceding one as regards
irreducibility.

在另一方面,假如你们採用另外一种圆圈,我已经跟你们谈论过的圆圈,这个圆圈并没有穿过这个空洞,而是绕过这个空洞。这个圆圈发现它自己处在相同的情况,跟先前的圆圈相同的情况,关于无法被化简。

It also finds itself in the same situation as
the preceding one as regards the fact that it is not sufficient
to define an inside or an outside. In other words that if you
follow this circle and if you open the torus with the help of a
pair of scissors, you will finally get what?

它也发现它自己处于相同的情况,跟先前的那个圆圈,关于这个事实:光是将它定义为内部或外部是不足够的。换句话说,假如你们遵循这个圆圈,假如你们打开这个圆环面,凭借一把剪刀的帮忙,你们将会获得什么?

Well, the same
thing as in the preceding case: this has the shape of a torus but
it is a shape which presents only an intuitive difference, which
is altogether essentially the same from the point of view of
(14) structure. You always have after this operation, as in the
first case, a sleeve, simply it is a very short and a very wide
sleeve, you have a belt if you wish but there is no essential
difference between a belt and a sleeve from the topological point
of view, again you can call it a strip if you wish.

呵呵,相同的东西,如同在先前的情况,这个圆圈拥有圆环面的形状。但是这一个形状呈现的仅是直觉的差异。这个直觉的差异基本上完全是相同,从结构的观点。在这个运作之后,你们总是拥有一个袖子,如同在第一个情况。因为它是非常短,而且非常宽的袖子。你们拥有一个腰带,不妨这样说,但是这并没有基本的差别,在腰带与袖子之间,从拓扑图形的观点。而且,你们也可以称它为长条带子。

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

Identification 127

April 26, 2015

Identification 127
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

11.4.62 XVII 209

I pose the
following question to you: what happens if Euler, instead of
drawing this circle, draws my inverted eight the one that today I
have to talk to you about?

我跟你们提出以下的问题:假如尤勒并不是画这个圆圈,而是画我的倒转的“8”,那还发生什么情况?今天我跟你们谈论的这个倒转的“8”。

In appearance it is only a particular case of the circle with the
inside field that it defines and the possibility of having
another circle within. Simply the inside
circle touches – here
is what at first sight some people
may say to me – the inside circle
touches on the limit constituted by
the outside circle. Only it is all
the same not quite that, in this
sense that it is quite clear, in
the way I draw it, that the line
here of the outside circle
continues into the line of the
inside circle and finds itself
here.

外表上,这仅是圆圈的一个特殊的情况,具有它定义的内部领域,与拥有另外一个圆圈在内部的可能性。只是这个内部的圆圈碰触到—在此时乍然一看,是某些人们跟我说的东西,内部的圆圈碰触到这个限制,由外部的圆圈组成的限制。只是这仍然并不完全是那样。从这个意义,显而易见地,以我画它的这个方式,外部圆圈的这条线,继续进入到内部圆圈的这条线,并且发现它自己在那里。

And so in order simply immediately to mark the
interest, the
import of this very simple shape, I will suggest to you that the
remarks that I introduced at a certain point of my seminar when I
introduced the function of the signifier consisted in the
following: reminding you of the paradox or the supposed one
introduced by the classification of sets – you remember – which
do not include themselves.

为了仅是马上标示这个興趣,这个形状的意义,我将跟你们建议,我介绍的这些标示,在我的研讨班的某个时刻,当我介绍能指的这个功能。这些标示在于以下:提醒你们有关这个悖论,所被认为的这个悖论,由集合的分类所介绍的悖论—你们记得,这些集合的分类没有包括它们自己。
I remind you of the difficulty they introduce: should one or
should one not include these sets which do not include themselves
(10) in the set of sets which do not include themselves? You see
the difficulty here. If yes, then they include themselves in
this set of sets which do not include themselves. If not, we
find ourselves confronted with an analogous impasse.

我提醒你们有关它们介绍的这个困难:我们应该或我们不应该包括这些集合,这些没有包括它们自己的集合,没哟包括它们自己的众多集合中的这个集合?你们看出在此的这个困难。假如回答是肯定,那么它们包括它们自己,在没有包括它们自己的这些集合的这个集合。假如回答是否定,我们将会发现我们自己面临一个类似的僵局。

This is easily resolved on this simple condition that one grasps
at least the following – it is the solution that moreover the
formalists, the logicians have given – that one cannot speak, let
us say in the same way, about sets which include themselves and
sets which do not include themselves. In other words that one
excludes them as such from the simple definition of sets, that
one poses when all is said and done that the sets which include
themselves cannot be posed as sets.

这很容易被解决,条件很简单:我们至少理解以下的东西—而且,这是形式主义者,逻辑专家曾经给予的解决—容我们用相同的方式说,我们无法谈论关于包含自己的那些集合,与那些没有包括自己的集合。换句话说,我们排除它们自身,从集合的这个简单的定义。当一切都说都做了,我们提出的这个定义, 包括它们自己的那些集合,无法被提出作为集合。

I mean that far from this
inside zone of objects as important in the construction of modern
logic as sets, far from an inside zone defined by this image of
the inverted eight by the overlapping or the redoubling in this
overlapping of a class, of a relation, of some proposition or
other by itself, by being raised to a second power, far from this
leaving as a well-known case the class, the proposition, the
relationship in a general fashion, the category inside itself in
a fashion that is in a way more weighty more accentuated, this
has the effect of reducing it to homogeneity with what is
outside.
我指的是,根本就不是从各种客体的这个内部的地区,作为现代逻辑的集合的建构,根本就不是从这个倒转的“8”的这个意象定义的这个内部的地区,凭借重叠或重复加倍,在分类的重叠,关系的重叠,某个其他命题的重叠,凭借被提升到二次方,根本就不是这个离开,作为一个著名的情况,这个分类,这个命题,这个一般形式的关系,它自己内部的范畴,使用某方面更加具有份量,更加长久,这具有这个效果:将它化简成为同质性,跟外在的东西的同质性。

11.4.62 XVII 210

How is this conceivable? For indeed one must all the same
clearly say that, if this is the way that the question is
presented, namely among all the sets, there is no a priori reason
not to make of a set which includes itself a set like the others.
You define as a set for example all the works that refer to the
(11) humanities, namely to the arts, to the sciences, to
ethnography. You make a list of them; the works produced on the
question of what one should class as humanities will form part of
the same catalogue, namely that what I have even defined just now
in articulating the title: works about the humanities, forms part
of what is to be catalogued.

这是如何被构想的?因为确实地,我们仍然必须清楚地说,假如这就是问题被呈现的方式,也就是说,在所有的集合当中,并没有先验的理由,不将没有包括它自己的集合,解释成为像其他的集合。譬如,你们定义所有提到人文学科的东西作为一个集合。也就是,提到文学院,理学院,提到少数种族。你将它们列成一个名单,针对我们应该分类作为人文学科分类的问题产生的著作,它们将组成这个相同范畴的部分。换句话说,我刚才甚至定义的东西,当我表达这个题目:没有人文学科的著作,从应该被分类为范畴的东西的部分。

How can we conceive that something which is thus posed as
redoubling itself in the dignity of a certain category can find
itself practically leading us to an antinomy, to a logical
impasse such that we are on the contrary constrained to reject
it? Here is something which is not as unimportant as you might
think because one has practically seen the best logicians see in
it a sort of failure, a stumbling block, a vacillating point of
the whole formalist edifice, and not without reason. Here is
something which nevertheless puts to intuition a sort of major
objection, inscribed, tangible, visible of itself in the very
form of these two circles which are presented, in the Eulerian
perspective, as included one in the other.

我们如何能够构想,某件东西因此被提出作为重复加倍它自己?在某种范畴的尊严。这个东西能够发现它自己几乎引导我们到一个对立,引导我们到一个逻辑的僵局。以致于我们相反地,被约束要排斥它?在此是某件东西,它不像你们可能会认为的那样不重要。因为我们几乎看见,即使是最好的逻辑专家,在它里面看见一种失败,一种绊脚石,整个的形式主义的建构的摇摆的点。这并没有理由。在此是某件东西,它仍然将直觉当成是反对的理由。它被铭记,具体表现,本身看得见,以被呈现的这两个圆圈的形式。从尤勒的观点,作为被包括的一在,另外一个被包括的一里。

It is precisely on this point that we are going to see that the
use of the intuition of the representation of the torus is quite
usable. And given that you clearly sense, I imagine, what is
involved, namely a certain relationship of the signifier to
itself, as I told you, it is in the measure that the definition
of a set has got closer and closer to a purely signifying
articulation that it leads us to this impasse, it is the whole
question of the fact that it is a matter for us of putting in the
foreground that a signifier cannot signify itself. In fact it is
something excessively stupid and simple, this very essential
point that the signifier in so far as it can be used to signify
itself has to be posed as different to itself. This is what it
is a matter of symbolising in the first place because it is also
this that we are going to rediscover, up to a certain point of
extension which it is a matter of determining, in the whole
subjective structure up to and including desire.

确实针对这一点,我们将会看出,圆环面的呈现的直觉的使用,完全是行得通的。假如考虑到,你们清楚地感觉我想像所被牵涉的东西。换句话说,能指跟它自己的某种关系,如同我告诉你们,随着集合的定义越来越靠近纯粹成为能指的表达,它引导我们来到这个僵局。就在这个事实的整个的问题,对于我们,前景出现的是:能指无法让它自己成为能指。事实上,这是某件过分愚蠢而单纯的东西,这个非常重要的点,能指必须被提出,跟它自己不同,只要它能够被用来让它自己成为能指。这就是为什么首先这是象征的问题,因为我们将要重新发现的东西,也就是这个。一直到某个延伸的点。这就是决定的问题,在整个的主体的结构里,一直到包括欲望。

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

From an other to the Other 11

April 26, 2015

From an other to the Other 11
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

20.11.68

There is a person, like that, earlier, among those who might instruct themselves a little
bit here and get rid of their nonsense, who left because she finds no doubt that what I
am saying are banalities. Apparently it is necessary to say them; otherwise why
would I take the trouble, after all I have just said, about the fact that a discourse has
consequences or not. It had in any case as a consequence this leaving, which serves
as a signal. This indeed is why it is essential that in psychoanalysis we should have
some minds formed in what is called – 1 do not know why – “mathematical logic”, like
that, through an old constraint, as if there were any other. It is quite simply logic. It
happens that it has interested mathematics.

有一个人,就像那样,早先,就像那些稍微凭借自学成功,废除他们的陈腔滥调。她离开,因为她找不到任何怀疑,我所说的话都说陈腔滥调。显而易见,有必要这样说它们,否则为什么我要花费这个心力?毕竟,我刚刚说过的东西,关于辞说拥有结果与否的这个事实。无论如何,辞说拥有这个离开,作为结果。离开充当一种讯息。这确实是为什么在精神分析,我们有必要培养某些的心态,在所谓的“数学逻辑”—我不知道为什么—像那样,经有古老的约束,好像还有任何其的约束。那仅就是逻辑。偶然,逻辑曾经让数学感到興趣。

This is all that distinguishes it from
Aristotelian logic that very obviously did not interest mathematics. It is a progress for
logic that it interests mathematics, yes! This mathematical logic, to call things by
their name, is altogether essential for your existence; whether you know it or whether
you do not know it. It is precisely because you do not know very much about it that
things happen that stir things up from time to time, very recent things. People are
waiting for me to talk about them, but I will speak about them, I will speak about
them! It all depends on the time that I am going to spend in unfolding what I prepared
for you today and I would like to have a little point, like that, to give you before
leaving you. But it is not sure, because I never know too well. What I bring you is
never absolutely measured out.

这就是区别逻辑与亚里斯多德的逻辑的差异。显而易见地,数学对亚里斯多德的逻辑并不感興趣。逻辑让数学感到興趣确实是个进步。所谓的数理逻辑,对于你们的存在而言,完全是必要的。无论你知道与否,或无论你不知道它。确实是因为你并不知道它,以致于有时会发生扰乱的事情,最近的事情。人们正在等待我们谈论它们。但是我将谈论它们,我将谈论它们!这要看我打算花费多少时间,来展开我今天我为你们准备的东西。我想要稍微表达像那样的一点,在离开你们之前,给予你们一点。但是这并不确实,因为我并十分确定。我带给你们的东西,并没有绝对地被测试过。

That is not where the question is. Whether you know it or whether you do not know
it, the bizarre question is that obviously I have just alluded to the fact, since I told you
that whether you knew it or whether you did not know it, whether it has always been
true that mathematical logic has consequences as regards your existence as a subject,
(25) which I have just said are there whether you know it or whether you do not know
it. Because then the question is posed, of how it could happen before the logic that is
called mathematical came to birth? It is the question of the existence of God. I have
already remarked it but I repeat – one cannot repeat oneself too much – was
mathematical logic already there, in the divine brainbox, before in your existence as a
subject, which would have thus been conditioned from that moment on, you were
already affected by it?

那并不是问题的所在。无论你知道它,或无论你不知道它,这个古怪的问题是,显而易见地,我刚刚提到这个事实。因为我告诉你们,无论你们知道它,或无论你们不知道它,无论这是否总是真实的,数理逻辑拥有一些结果,关于你们作为主体的生命实存。我刚刚说过,这些结果存在那里,无论你们知道它,或你们不知道它。因为那时这个问题被提出,这是如何发生的?这个所谓的“数理”诞生于逻辑之前?这是上帝的存在的问题。我已经谈论过它,但是我重复一遍—我们越是重复我们自己越好。在神性的脑袋里,数理逻辑已经在那里吗?在你们作为主体的存在之前?因此,从那个时刻开始,你们作为主体的存在本来就已经受到制约,你们已经受到它的影响?

It is a problem that has all its importance because it is around this that there takes
effect this advance that a discourse has consequences. Namely, that something close
to the effects of discourse was required for there to be born that of mathematical logic.
And that in any case, even if something could already represent in an existence of a
subject something that retroactively we can attach to some facts in this existence of
the discourse of logic, it is quite clear, it ought to be firmly held that they are not the
same consequences as since this discourse, I mean that of mathematical logic, has
been put forward.

这是一个具有它的重要性的问题。因为环绕这一点,辞说拥有结果的这个进步在那里产生效果。换句话说,某件靠近辞说的效果的东西被要求,为了让数理逻辑的辞说被诞生。无论如何,即使在主体的存在里,某件东西能够已经代表某件东西,我们能够将这个东西跟逻辑的辞说的存在里的某些事实联接一块,那是显而易见,它应该坚定地被认为,它们并不是相同的结果。因为这个辞说已经被提出,我指的是数理逻辑的辞说。

Here there is situated the necessary and the contingent in the discourse that is
effectively held. This indeed is where I have trouble in seeing why the structural
reference is supposed to overlook the dimension of history. It is simply a matter of
knowing what one is talking about! History as it is included in historical materialism
appears to me to conform strictly to structural requirements.

在此。有效地被相信的辞说的必然性与偶然性被定位。这确实是我遭遇困难的地方,当我看见为什么结构的指称被认为是忽略了历史的维度。问题仅是要知道我们正在谈论什么!依照被包含在历史唯物论里的历史,我觉得,严格地跟结构的要求不谋而合。

Was surplus value there
before abstract labour, I mean what this abstraction is separated out from, I mean as a
social means, resulted from something that we will call – 1 am not guaranteeing the
exactitude of the first word but I want to say a word that has weight – the
absolutisation of the market. It is more than probable, and for a good reason which is
that we have, for that, introduced the surplus enjoying. That one can consider that this
absolutisation of the market is only a condition so that surplus value can appear in
discourse.

在抽离出来的劳工之前,剩余价值存在那里吗?我指的是,这个抽离被分开来,我指的是作为社会的工具,它因为某件事情而造成,我们所谓的—我不是正在保证第一个字词的确定性,我想要说一个具有份量的字—市场的绝对真理。这是很有可能的。理由很充分。因为那个理由,我们已经介绍“剩余享乐”。我们能够认为,市场的绝对真理仅是一个条件,为了让剩余价值存在于辞说里。

There was therefore required this thing that can with difficulty be
separated from the development of certain effects of language, namely, the
absolutisation of the market to the point that it encompasses labour itself for surplus
value to be defined in the fact that in paying with money or not, with money because
we are in the market, for labour, its true price, as the function of exchange value is
defined in the market, there is an unpaid value in what appears as the fruit of labour,
in a use value, in what is the true price of this fruit. This unpaid labour, even though
paid in a correct fashion with respect to the consistency of the market, this, in the
functioning of the capitalist subject, this unpaid labour is the surplus value. It is the
fruit of the means of articulation that constitutes the capitalistic discourse from
capitalist logic.

这个东西因此被要求,这个东西很困难被分开,更语言的某些效果的发展分开。换句话说,市场的绝对主义。甚至,它涵盖劳工自身,为了让剩余价就被定义在这个事实:当我们用金钱偿付与否,用金钱,因为我们在市场里。在出现作为劳工的成果的东西,有一个没有偿付的价值,在使用价值,在这个成果的真实的价值的东西。这个没有被偿付的劳工,在资本主义的主体的功能,他即使被偿付,用正确的方式,关于市场的一致性。这个没有被偿付的劳工就是剩余价值。这是表达的工具的成果,这个表达组成资本主义的辞是,用资本主义的逻辑。

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

Identification 126

April 25, 2015

Identification 126
认同
Jacques Lacan
11.4.62 XVII 207

(7) There is another relationship illustrated by these
overlapping circles: it is that of intersection, symbolised by
this sign whose signification is completely different. The
field of intersection is included in the field of union.
In what is called Boolean algebra, it is shown that, up to a
certain point at least, this operation of union is analogous
enough to addition for it to be able to be symbolised by the sign
of addition (+). It is also shown that intersection is
structurally analogous enough to multiplication for it to be
symbolised by the sign of multiplication (X).

这些重叠的圆圈所说明的,还有另外一种关系:交会的关系,由这些符号象征的关系。这个符号的意义完全是不同的。交会的领域被包括在结合的领域。在所谓的布林代数。它显示出来,至少直到某个点,结合的这个运作足够类同于“增加”,为了让它被“加 法+”的这个符号所象征。它也显示,交换在结构上足够类同于“乘法X”,为了让它被“乘法X”这个符号所象征。

I assure you that I am giving here an ultra-rapid extract
designed to lead you where I have to lead you and I apologise of
course to those for whom these things present themselves in all
their complexity for the elisions that all of this involves.

我告诉你们,我在此正在给予一个超级-迅速的摘要,被设计来引导你们,在我必须引导你们的地方。当然,并且我抱歉,对于那些觉得这些事情的呈现过分复杂的人们,因为所有这一切都牵涉到省略。

Because we must go further and on the precise point that I have
to introduce, what interests us, is something which up to De
Morgan – and one can only be astonished at such an omission – had
not been properly speaking highlighted as precisely one of these
functions which flow from, which ought to flow from an altogether
rigorous usage of logic, it is precisely this field constituted
by the extraction, in the relationship between these two circles
of the zone of intersection.

因为我们必须更加深入。在我必须选择的准确点。让我感到興趣的东西,恰当而言,是某件一直到德 莫根都没有准确地被强调—对于这个省略,我们仅能惋叹—作为流露出了的这些的功能之一,应该从逻辑的非常严谨的用法流露出来的东西。确实就是这个领域,由这个摘要所形成,在这两个圆圈之间的关系,交会的地区的这两个圆圈之间的关系。

And to consider what the product is, when two circles cut, at the
level of a field described in this way, namely the union minus
the intersection. This is what is called the symmetric
difference.

并且要考虑到这个产物是什么,当两个圆圈切割,以这种方式被描述的领域的层面。也就是,结合减去交会。这就是所谓的均称的差异。

This symmetric difference is what is going to retain our
(8) attention, what for us – you will see why – is of the
greatest interest. The term symmetric difference is here an
appellation that I would simply ask you to take for its
additional usage. This was what it was called. Do not try
therefore to give a grammatically analysable meaning to this
so-called symmetry.

均称的差异就是将要保留我们的注意力的东西。你们将会看出什么—对于我们,最令人感到興趣的是什么。“均称差异”这个术语在此是一种“归类”,我仅是要求你们从事这种归类,为了它的“加法”的用途。这就是它被称呼的东西。因此,请你们不要尝试给一个文法可分析的意义,给予这个所谓的“均称”。

The symmetric difference, this is what that
means, that means: these fields, in the two Eulerian circles, in
so far as they define as such an exclusive “or”. With respect to
two different fields, the symmetric difference marks the field
as it is constructed if you give to the “or”, not the alternative
sense, but one which implies the possibility of a local identity
between the two terms; and the usual usage of the term “or” meansthat in fact the term “or” applies here very well to the field of union. If a thing is A or B, this is how the field of its extension can be drawn, namely in the first form that these two
fields are discovered. If on the contrary A or B is exclusive this
is how we can symbolise it, namely that the field of intersection is excluded.

这个均称的差异,这就是它的意思。它意味着:这些领域,在这两个尤勒的圆圈。因为它们定义一个排除的“或者”,作为自身。关于这两个不同的差异,这个均称的差异标示这个领域,因为它被建构,假如你们给予这个“或者”,不是替代的意涵,而是这个意涵暗示着这个可能性,在这两个术语之间的局部的认同的可能性。“或者”这个术语的通常用法意味着,实际上,“或者”这个术语在此应用得非常恰当,对于结合的领域。假如一件东西是A 或B,这就是它的延伸到领域如何被获得。假如相反地,A或B是互相排除,这就是我们用来象征它的方式。换句话说,交会的领域被排除。

This should lead us back to a reflection about what is
intuitively supposed by the usage of a circle as a basis, as a
support for what is formalised in function of a limit. This is
very sufficiently defined in the fact that on a commonly used
plane, which does not mean a natural plane, a plane that can be fabricated, a plane which has completely entered into our universe of implements, namely a sheet of paper, we live much more in the company of sheets of paper than in the company of tori. There must be reasons for that but after all reasons which are not evident. Why after all does man not fabricate more tori?

这应该引导我们回到这个反思,关于将圆圈使用作为基础,直觉上所假设的东西。作为一种支持,支持用限制的功能所被说明的东西。这充分地被定义,在这个事实:在共同用法的层面,这并不意味着自然的层面,能够被建构的层面,已经完全进入我们的工具的宇宙的层面。换句话说,一张纸,我们生活在纸张的伴随,胜过于圆环面的伴随。那样的伴随,一定有其理由。但是毕竟都是并没有证据的理论。为了人们不建构更多的圆环面?

Moreover for centuries, what we nowadays have in the form of sheets were rolls which must have been more familiar with the notion of volume in epochs other than our own.

而且,经历几世纪以来,我们今天所拥有的东西,用纸张的形式,都是一些捲轴。这些捲轴对于世代的数量的观念,一定更加耳熟能详。,比起我们的世代

Finally there is certainly a reason why this plane surface is something which
(9) suffices for us and more exactly that we satisfy ourselves
with it. These reasons must be somewhere. And – I indicated it
earlier – one cannot give too much importance to the fact that,
contrary to all the efforts of physicists and philosophers to
persuade us of the contrary, the field of vision whatever is said
about it is essentially two-dimensional:

最后,确实有一个理由,为什么这个层面的表面,是某件确实更加确实地足够地给予我们。我们对它感到满意。这些理由一定在某个地方。我早先曾指示它—对于这个事实,我们越加强调,也不为过:跟物理学家与哲学家的所有的努力恰恰相反,无论人们怎么说它,幻象的这个领域据说基本是两个维度:

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

Seminar 12 (03)

April 24, 2015

Seminar 12 (03)
Crucial Problems
重大的难题

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

What is the unconscious, if not precisely ideas, thoughts, Gedanken, thoughts
whose faded greenness, does not Freud tell us somewhere, that like the shades
summoned from hell and returning to the sunlight, want to drink blood, to recover
their colours. Is it the thoughts of the unconscious that are involved, that here
sleep furiously?

这个无意识是什么?无意识难道不是确实就是观念,思想,未经测试的思想,让绿色褪色的思想?弗洛依德难道不是在某个地方告诉我们,就像是从地狱被招唤的幽魂,然后回到阳光之下?幽魂们想要喝血,为了恢复他们的血色?牵涉到的难道不就是无意识的思想?在此愤怒地睡着?

Well, all of that would have been a very pretty exercise but I did not pursue it, I
(11) would not say to the end, because I am cutting it short only to suggest that it
is quite simply completely idiotic.

呵呵,所有那一切本来会上非常漂亮的做法。但是我并没有追寻它。我并没有说到彻底,因为我正在中断它,结果仅是建议:那完全是白痴般做法。

The unconscious has nothing to do with these metaphorical meanings, however far
we may push them. And to search for meaning in a signifying, grammatical chain
is an undertaking of extraordinary futility.

无意识与这些隐喻的意义,没有丝毫关系,无论我们将它们推敲到底。为了寻找意义,在成为能指的文法的锁链,这种从事特别是徒劳无功。

For if, because of the fact that I am before this audience, I was able to give it that
meaning, I could just as well have given it a completely different one, and for a
simple reason, which is that any signifying chain whatsoever, provided it is
grammatical, always generates a meaning, and I would go further, any one
whatsoever.

因为我目前在听众面前的这个事实,假如我以前能够给予无意识这个意义,我本来大可给予无意识完全不同的意义。理由很简单,任何成为能指的锁链,只要它是文法的锁链,它总是产生意义。我将更加深入,它总是产生任何的意义。

Because I commit myself, in varying, and one can vary to infinity, the surrounding
conditions, the situation, but what is more, the situations of dialogue, I can make
this sentence mean whatever I want, including for example in a particular case that
I am mocking you.

因为我以不同方式,尽我可能的不同方式,我奉献于周遭的环境,情况。但是,尤有甚者,对话的各种情况。我能够让这个句子意味着任何我想要的东西。譬如,包括在特殊的情况,我正在嘲讽你们。

Pay attention! Does there not intervene here at this extreme point something other
than a meaning? That I am able, in a particular context, to make any meaning
emerge from it, is one thing, but is it really meaning that is involved. Because
why did I say that nothing guaranteed the meaning I gave earlier? It is in the very
measure that I had given it one with respect to what? With respect to an object, a
(12) referent, something that I have brought out there for the needs of the case,
namely the unconscious.

请你们注意!在这个极端的时刻,难道不是有除了意义以外的某件东西介入这里?在特殊的上下文本,我能够让任何意义从它那里出现,是一回事。但是,所牵涉到的东西确实是意义吗?随着我曾经给予它一个意义,关于什么的一个意义?关于一个客体,一个指称,某件我曾经揭露出来的东西,为了这个情况的需要。换句话说,无意识。

In speaking about context, in speaking about dialogue, I allow to disappear, to
vanish, to vacillate what is involved, namely, the function of sense. What it is a
question here of circumscribing more closely is the distinction between the two.
In the final analysis, how does it come about that its very author who chose this
sentence, drew comfort so easily from something that is so doubtful, namely that it
does not make sense.

当我谈论关于文本上下文,当我谈论对话,我容许所被牵涉的东西消失,失踪,摇摆,换句话说,那个东西就是意义的功能。在此更加仔细限制的问题,是要区别这两个功能。追根究底,这是如何发生的?它的这位作者选择这个句子,从某件东西如此容易地获得安慰,这个东西是如此可疑。换句话说,它并没有形成意义。

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

From an other to the Other 10

April 24, 2015

From an other to the Other 10
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

20.11.68

Only there you are. Inevitably, people imagine that the realistic argument is to make
an allusion to the feet that, whether we are there or not, we and our science, as if our
science were ours, and if we were not determined by it, well then people say nature is
always there. I absolutely do not dispute it. Nature is there. The way physics
distinguishes itself from nature is that physics is worth saying something about, that
discourse has consequences in it. In nature, as everyone knows – and that is even why
it is so loved – no discourse has any at all! This is what differentiates nature from
physics. To be a philosopher of nature was never taken at any period as a certificate
of materialism, for example, nor of scienticity.

只是你们瞧!无可避免地,人们想像实际的争论是要提到这些脚。无论我们是否在那里,我们与我们的科学,好像我们的科学是我们的。假如我们没有被科学决定,呵呵,人们说,自然总是在那里。我绝对没有争议这一点。自然是在那里。物理区别它自己跟自然的不同是,物理值得说出某件事情的东西,辞说在物理具有各种结果。在自然,众所周知,那甚至就是为什么物理如此被爱好—没有一个辞说拥有任何结果。那就是区别自然与物理的不同。成为自然的哲学家,无论在任何时期,都没有被拿来充当唯物论的证书,譬如,也没有被拿来充当科学的证书。

But let us take things up again, because that is not where we are. If physics does
indeed give us a model of a discourse that is worthwhile, the necessities of our
discourse ought to be taken at a higher level. Every discourse presents itself as heavy
with consequences, but ones that are obscure. Nothing of what we say, in principle,
fails to imply some. Nevertheless we do not know which. We notice in language –
for it is at the level of language that I will take things up, and to clearly mark the
limits – a syntax that is incarnated by a great number of tongues that, for want of
boldness, are called positive tongues.

但是让我们再次探讨事情。因为那并不是我们目前所在的地方。假如物理确实曾经给予具有价值的辞说的模式,我们辞说的这些必要应该以更高的层次看待。每个辞说呈现它自己,作为充满各种结果。但是都是模糊的结果。我们所说的内容,原则上,每一样都会暗示某个模糊的结果。可是,我们并不知道哪一个结果。我们在语言里注意到,因为那是在语言的层次,我将探讨事情,清楚地标示这些限制—由许多语言具体表现的句法。这些语言被称为积极的语言,不妨大胆地说。

Because I am there, and because I have just
made a remark about nature that, I think, does not at all seem to you irrelevant, but
(23) why, why should we inconvenience ourselves and not call them natural tongues?
One would see better in this way what concerns linguistics and what allows it to be
situated in the discourse of science. It is quite clear that even vis-a-vis language —
whatever prevalence we may accord to it because we forget it as a natural reality —
every scientific discourse about the tongue is presented by a reduction of its material.

因为我在那里,因为我刚刚发表关于自然的谈论,我认为,关于自然的谈论跟你们根本就不相关。但是为什么我们竟然让我们自己感到不方便,而不称它们为自然的语言?用这种方式,我们将看得更加清楚,对于语言学专注的东西。以及让语言学能够被定位在科学的辞说。显而易见地,面对面的语言,无论我们给予它多大的优势,因为我们忘记它,作为自然的现实—每个关于语言的科学的辞说,呈现时,它的材料都会减少。

A functioning is highlighted in which consequences are grasped. I would say more, in
which there is grasped the very notion of consequence with its varieties of necessary
or contingent for example. There is carried out then a discursive split and this is what
allows there to be given its whole value to the fact that I first of all affirm that there is
no meta-language, which is true in the field of natural language.

一个功能的结果被人理解后被强调,我更深入地说,结果的这个观念在那里被人理解,譬如,具有它的必然性与偶然性的变数。因此会有一个辞说的分裂。这就是它的整体的价值可能被给予这个事实的东西:首先,我肯定没有形上语言。形上语言是在自然语言的领域,才是真实的。

But why do you
carry out this reduction of the material? I have just told you. It is to highlight a
functioning in which consequences are grasped, and once you grasp consequences,
you articulate them in something that you have the right to consider as meta-language,
except for the feet that this “meta” can only create a confusion. And that this is why I
would prefer what gives rise to the detaching in discourse of what must be called by
its name, logic – 1 am indicating here nothing more – always conditioned by nothing
other than by a reduction of material. And I illustrate here what I mean.

但是你们为什么从事这个材料的化简?我刚刚告诉过你们。那是要强调一种功能,在那里,各种结果被人理解。一旦你们理解各种结果,你们表达它们在某件事情上。你们拥有权利将这个东西认为是形上语言。除了这个事实:这个“形上“仅是会创造混乱。

Reduction of material means that logic begins at this precise date in history when, for
certain elements of language as functioning in their natural syntax, someone who
understands it, who inaugurates logic, substitutes for certain of these elements a
simple letter. It is starting from the moment when with, “if this, then that” you
introduce an A or a B that logic begins. And it is only starting from there that in
language you are able, about the use of this A and of this B, to pose a certain number
of axioms and laws of discussion that will merit the title of being articulated as metaor
if you prefer para-language. So then no more than physics extends, like the
goodness of God, to the whole of nature, does logic circumscribe the whole of
/language.

材料的化简意味着,逻辑开始,在历史的这个准确的资料,当语言的某些元素,充当它们自然的句法的功能,某位理解它的人,某位开启逻辑的人,用一个简单的字母替换某些的这些元素。从那个时刻开始,採有“假如这个,那么那个“,你们介绍逻辑开始的A或。仅是从那里开始,在语言里,你们能够,在使用这个A与使用这个B,你们能够提出某些的公理与讨论的法则。它们将会获得这个头衔,被表述作为”meteor流星雨“的头衔,假如你们比较喜欢”后设语言para-language“的话。因此,如同仅是物理学,就像上帝的善,延伸到整个的自然, 逻辑也限制语言的整体。

It nevertheless remains, as I have said, that either it is a delusion, absurd folly to dwell
on it – this indeed in effect is the whole appearance that one has of it in these
publications, most of them – to dwell on psychoanalysis, or what it states is that
everything that you are, to be understood as up to now, as a sentient being – 1 did not
say simply as a thinking being, even though after all there is no reason to have any
repugnance for this term; is the fact of thinking the privilege of intellectualistic
intellectuals who, as everyone knows, are the poison of this nether world, of this
nether psychoanalytic world I mean – everything that you are as a sentient being fells
under the influence of the consequences of discourse.

如同我刚刚说过,问题仍然是,详述精神分析,要就是一种幻觉,荒谬的愚蠢。实际上,这确实整体的表象,在这些出版物,我们对它拥有的整体的表象,大部分的表象。详述精神分析,要不就是,它所陈述的东西是每一样你具生命实存的东西。为了被人理解,迄今作为有情众生。我并不是说,仅是作为会思维的人。即使毕竟没有理由厌恶这个术语。精神分析所陈述的东西,要不就是这个事实:具有知识能力的知识份子的思维的特权。众所周知,具有知识能力的知识份子就是这个阴间世界的毒药,我指的是这个阴间的精神分析的世界。每一样你们具有生命实存的东西,作为有情众生,在辞说的各种结果的影响之下,被砍倒。

Even your death, I mean the
(24) quaint idea that you may have of it, is not separable from the fact that you can
say it, and I mean by that not just to say it naively. Even the idea that I call quaint,
because in effect it does not have any great weight for you, that you have of your
death is not separable from the maximal discourse that you may weave about it. This
indeed is the reason why the feeling that you have of it is nothing but quaint. I would
even say that naively, you cannot begin to say it. Because what I am alluding to, is
not at all to the fact that primitive people are naive and that is why they speak about it
in such a funny way.

即使在你们死后,我指的是这个古怪的观念,你们对于死亡拥有的古怪的观念,即使你们的死亡都无法跟这个事实分开:你们说死亡。我说那话的意思并不仅是天真地说死亡。甚至我所谓的“古怪“,因为实际上,它对于你们并无关紧要。你们对于你们的死亡的古怪的观念,跟你们可能编织关于死亡的最大量的辞说,密不可分。这确实就是为什么你们对于死亡拥有的感觉,仅仅就是古怪。我甚至天真地说它。你们无法开始说死亡。因为我正在提到的东西,根本就不是提到这个事实:原始的人们是天真的。那就是为什么他们谈论死亡,以如此好笑的方式。

That for them it is always a device, a poisoning, a spell that has
been cast, a gadget that is not labouring somewhere, in short an accident, this does not
at all prove that they speak about it naively. Do you find that that is naive! It is quite
the contrary. But it is precisely for that reason that they also fall under this law. The
feeling they have about their death is not separable from what they can say about it,
which was what had to be proved.

对于原始的人们,死亡总是一种设计,一种毒药,一种被施加的魔法,一种在某个地方并没有劳苦的机制,总之,死亡是一种意外。这根本就没有证明:他们天真地谈论死亡。是你们发现,那是天真!那恰恰相反。但是确实是因为这个理由,他们也受到这个法则的影响。他们拥有的感觉,关于他们的死亡,并没有跟他们所能说的关于死亡分开。死亡是必须被证实的东西。

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

Identification 125

April 23, 2015

Identification 125
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

11.204.62 XVII 204

Let us leave the princess and the troubles that she gave Euler.
He wrote 254 letters to her, not simply to make her understand
Eulerian circles. Published in 1775 in London, they constitute a
(4) sort of corpus of the scientific thinking at that date.

让我们离开这位公主与她带给尤勒的困扰。他写了254封信给她,不仅是为了让她理解尤勒的环圈。这些环圈被出版在伦敦,在1775年。它们形成那个时期的一种的科学思想的著作。

The only thing that survived from it effectively are these little
circles, these Eulerian circles which are circles like any other
circles it is simply a matter of seeing the use that he made of
them. It was to explain the rules of the syllogism and in the
final analysis exclusion, inclusion and then what can be called
the intersection of two what? Of two fields applicable to what?

有效地从这部著作存留下来的唯一的东西,就是这些小环圈,这些尤勒的环圈,它们是圆圈,就像其他圆圈一样。问题仅是要看出对它们所做的这个用途。那就是要解释“三段论法”的规则。追根究底就是:排除,包含,然后就是所谓的两个什么的交会?应用到什么的两个领域?

Well, my heavens, applicable to many things, applicable for
example to the field where a certain proposition is true,
applicable to the field where a certain relationship exists,
applicable quite simply to the field where an object exists.

呵呵,我的天,应用到许多事情,譬如,应该的这个领域,某个命题是真实的领域。应用到某个关系存在的领域,应用到客体存在的领域。

You see that the usage of the
Eulerian circle, if you are used to
the multiplicity of logics as they
were elaborated in an immense
effort, the greater part of which
belongs to propositional logic and
the logic of classes, was
distinguished in the most useful
fashion. I cannot even dream of
entering of course into the details
that would be required to make the distinction between these
elaborations. What I simply want to have recognised here, is
that you surely remember one or other moment of your existence
where there has come to you, under this form of a support, some
logical proof or other, some object as a logical object, whether
it involved a proposition, a class relationship, or even simply
an object of existence.

尤勒的圆圈,假如你们习惯于逻辑的多重性,依照它们殚精竭力所被建造。其中最大的部分属于命题逻辑与分类逻辑。它们被区别出来,用最用的方式。当然,我甚至无法梦想进入这些细节,将会被要求的细节,为了区别这些建构之间的区别。在此,我仅是想要体认出来的东西,就是,你们确实记住你们的存在的某个时刻,你们拥有的存在的时刻。在支持的这个形式之下,某个逻辑的证明,某个客体作为逻辑的客体。无论它牵涉到命题,分类的关系,或甚至仅是存在的客体。

Let us take an example at the level of the logic of classes
and let us represent this example
by a small circle inside a big
one, mammals with respect to the
class of vertebrates; this works
quite easily and all the more
simply because the logic of
classes is certainly what
at the beginning opened up
in the easiest way the paths to this
formal elaboration and you should consult
here something already
incarnated in a signifying elaboration, quite simply that of
zoological classification which really gives it its model.

让我们举个例子,在分类的逻辑。并且让我们代表这个例子,用一个小圆圈,在一个大圆圈里面。哺乳动物,关于脊椎动物的分类。这相当容易运作,更加容易运作,仅是因为分类逻辑确实是在开始的地方,展开,以最容易的方式,展开正式建构的途径。你们应该在此参照某件东西,用成为能指的建构具体表现的东西。仅仅是动物学的分类的正式的建构。这种动物学的分类确实给予它这种模式。

But the universe of discourse, as it is quite correctly expressed, is not a zoological universe; and, by wanting to extend the
properties of the universe of zoological classification to the
whole universe of discourse, one easily slips into a certain
number of traps which help you to avoid mistakes and allow there (5) to be heard rather quickly the alarm signal of an significant impasse.

但是辞说的宇宙,依照它正确地被表达,并不是动物学的宇宙。凭借想要延伸动物学的分类的宇宙的特性,延伸到辞说的整个的宇宙。我们很容易陷入某些的陷阱。这些陷阱帮助你们避免错误,并且让一个重大的僵局的警告讯号很快地被听见。

11.4.62 XVII 205

One of these drawbacks is for example an ill-considered use of
negation. It is precisely in recent times that this use was
opened up as possible, namely just at the time when the remark
was made that this exterior Eulerian circle of inclusion ought to
play an essential role in the use
of negation, namely that it is
absolutely the same thing to speak
without any precision for example
of that which is not-man or of that
which is not-man within the animal
world. In other words that in
order that negation should have a
more or less assured, usable
meaning in logic, it is necessary
to know in relation to what set
something is denied. In other
words if A 1 is not A, it is
necessary to know within what it is
not A, namely here in B.
A’ = A

譬如,其中一个挫折就是对于“否定”的考虑欠佳的使用。确实就是在近代,这种使用被展开作为可能。换句话说,就在当这个谈论被发表,“包含”的这个外部的尤勒圆圈,应该扮演重演的角色,在使用“否定”。换句话说,这绝对是相同的事情:不明确地说,譬如,“非人的动物”或“在动物的世界,非人的动物”。换句话说,为了让“否定”在逻辑拥有相当确定,有用的意义。我们有必要知道,某件东西被否认,跟怎样的集合有关。换句话说,假如A1并不是A,我们有必要知道,在怎样的范围内,A1并不是A。也就是在B这里。A’=A

If you open Aristotle on this occasion, you will see negation
dragged into all sorts of difficulties. It nevertheless remains
incontestable that these remarks were not at all expected nor was the slightest use made of this formal support – I mean that it is not normal to make use of it in order to make use of negation –
namely that the subject in his discourse frequently makes use of
elsewhere than where It found its established position that we
have to define the status of negation. It is a reminder, a
reminder designed to clarify for you retrospectively the
importance of what from the beginning of my discourse of this
year I have been suggesting to you about the primordial
originality of the function of negation compared to this
distinction.

假如你们在这个场合打开亚里斯多德,你们将会看见“否定”被拉进各色各样的困难。仍然无可争议的是,这些谈论根本没有期望,对于这个正式的支持,即使稍微地使用,也没有被期望。我的意思是,正常状态,并没有使用到它,为了使用“否定“。换句话说,在他的辞说里,主体经常使用的”否定“,在别的地方,而不是在它发现它已经固定的立场,我们必须定义”否定“的地位。这是个提醒,被用来跟你们反顾地澄清的提醒,澄清从今年的我的辞说的开始,我一直跟你们建议的东西,关于”否定“的功能的原初的原创性,跟这个区别比较起来。

11.206.62 XVII 206

You see then that it was not Euler who used these Eulerian
(6) circles for this purpose; it was necessary in the meantime
for there to be introduced the work of Boole, then that of De
Morgan in order that this should be fully articulated.

你们因此看见,并不是尤勒使用这些尤勒的圆圈,来充当这个目的。同时,这也是必要的,要介绍博尔的研究。然后是,德 莫根的研究,为了让这个充分地被表达。

If I come back to these Eulerian circles then, it is not because
he himself made good use of them, but because it was with his
material, with the use of these circles that there could be made
the progress which followed of which I will give you at the same
time an example which is not the least important nor the least
notorious, in any case particularly gripping and immediate to
see.

假如我回到这些尤勒的圆圈,那倒不是因为尤勒他自己善用它们。而是因为使用他的材料,使用这些圆圈,我们才能够有这个随后的进展,我同时将会给予你们一个例子。那根本就不重要,根本就不恶名昭著。无论如何,看起来并没有特殊有趣与当下。

Between Euler and De Morgan the use of these circles allowed a
symbolisation which is useful also in that it appears to you
moreover implicitly fundamental, which reposes on the position of
these circles which are structured as follows: this is what we
will call two circles which intersect, which are especially
important for their intuitive appearance which will appear
incontestable to everyone if I point out to you that it is around
these circles that there can be first of all be articulated two
relationships which it would be well to accentuate strongly,
which are first of all that of union: involving anything
whatsoever that I enumerated earlier, \J their union, it is the
fact that after the operation of union, what is united are these
two fields.

在尤勒与德 莫根之间,对于这些圆圈的使用容下一种有用的象征。而且,你们觉得这个象征是非常基本的暗示。它依靠在这些圆圈的立场,如同以下的结构的圆圈:这就是我们所谓的交会的两个圆圈。它们特别的重用,因为它们直觉的外表。每个人都觉得它们是无可争议的。首先,有两个关系被表达。这确实要强烈地强调,它们首先就是结合的圆圈:牵涉到我稍早列举的任何东西,它们的结合,就是这个事实,在结合的运作之后,所被结合的东西,就是这两个领域。

is precisely what introduced this
symbol – is, as you see, something
which is not altogether like addition,
the advantage of these circles is to
make you sense that. It is not the
The operation described as
union which is ordinarily
symbolised as follows: – it
same thing for example to add two separate circles or to unite
them in this position.

这确实就是介绍这个象征的东西—你们看见,某件并不完全像是“增加“的东西。被描述为”结合“的运作,普通被作为象征如下:这些圆圈的利益就是要让你们理解那个。譬如,这并不是相同的事情,增加两个分开的圆圈,或是结合它们在这个立场。

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

From an other to the Other 9

April 22, 2015

From an other to the Other 9
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

But on the other hand there is something by which it indisputably affirms itself. It is
the symptom of the point in time that we have come to, let us say, in this provisional
word that I would call, like that, civilisation. I am not joking! I am not talking about
culture. That is vaster! It is moreover a question of convention. We will try to
situate culture in the current usage that is made of this term at a certain level that we
will call commercial.

但是在另一方面,有某件东西。凭借这个东西,它无可争议地肯定它自己。那种我们来到的这个时刻的要点的征状。我们不妨说,在这个暂时的字词,我将称之为文明的这个字词。我并不是开玩笑。我并不是在谈论关于文化。那是更加广泛!而且,这是传统的问题。我们将尝试定位文化在目前的用法。对于这个术语的用法,在我们称之为商业的层次。

20.11.68
Good! Let us come back to my discourse.

呵呵!让我们回到我的辞说。

To employ a metaphor here that I already used on several occasions to make you
(21) sense what I mean by a discourse that is valid, I would compare it to a scissors’
cut in this material that I talk about when I talk about the real of a subject. It is
through this scissors’ cut in what is called structure, in the way that this happens, that
it is revealed for what it is. If one makes the scissors’ cut somewhere, relationships change in such a way that what is not seen before is seen afterwards.

为了使用在此的一个隐喻,我已经在好几个场合用过的隐喻。为了让农民理解我所谓的正确的辞说的意思。我将正确的辞说比喻为一把剪刀切割我谈论的这个材料,当我谈论有关主体的实在界。通过这把剪刀的切割,在所谓的结构,以这个切割发生的方式,主体的实在界的本质被揭示出来。假如我们在某个地方从事剪刀的切割,关系将会改变,以这样的方式,以致于以前没有被看见的东西,后来被看见。

This is what I illustrated by saying that it is not a metaphor, in recalling to you that the
scissors’ cut in the Moebius strip makes a strip that no longer has anything to do’with
what it was previously. To take the next step, one could even say that in grasping this
. transformation, one perceives that it is the scissors’ cut that, in itself is the whole
strip, I mean, as long as it is, in so far as it is, a Moebius strip.

这就是我阐述的东西。我说,那并不是一个隐喻,当我提醒你们,在莫比斯环带的这个剪刀的切割,形成一条长条带状。这长条带状不再有任何关系,跟它先前的本质。为了採取下一步,我们甚至能够说,当我们理解这个转化,我们感觉,就是这个剪刀的切割,它的本身就是整个长条环带。我的意思是莫比斯环带,只要它是长条环带。

This is a way of speaking about the slightest metaphor. In other words, in principle,
whether you call it structuralist or not, let us say that it is not worth the trouble to talk
about anything except the real in which discourse itself has consequences. ■ Whether
you call that structuralism or not, it is what I called the last time the condition of
seriousness.

这就是谈了关于这个微不足道的隐喻的方式。换句话说,原则上,无论你称它为结构主义者与否。我们不妨说,谈论任何其他东西是不值得的,除了这个实在界。在实在界,辞说的本身就有结果。无论你们称它为结构主义与否,那是我上次所谓的严肃的情况。

It is particularly required in a technique whose pretension it is that
discourse has consequences in it since the patient only submits himself in an
artificially defined fashion to a certain discourse regulated in order that there should
be consequences. Nothing prevails against these remarks, not even those that one
sees displayed in books whose text is otherwise marked by this discourse itself, by
saying that I neglect the energetic dimension for example.

它在技术里特别被要求,这个技术的伪装,辞说在它那里,拥有结果。因为病人仅是用人为定义的方式,让自己承受某种被规范的辞说,为了让结果存在。对抗这些谈论,没有任何东西会佔优势。甚至我们看见被展示在书本里的那些谈论。那些书本的文本以不同的方式被这个辞说的本身标示着。譬如,凭借说,我忽略了精力的维度。

Things like that, I let pass.
I let them pass when it is a matter of polemical responses. But here, we are at the
heart of the subject since, as I pointed out the last time, for this exalted reference –
especially for those who do not even know what it means – to energetics, I substituted
a reference that, in our time, one would have difficulty in suggesting is less
materialist, a reference to the economy, the political economy. But let us not disdain
energetics on this occasion. For it to have a reference to our field, if we apply what I
have just said, it is necessary that the discourse should have consequences in it.

像那样的事情,我让它们过去,我让它们过去,当它是两极化的回应的事情。但是这里,我们处于主体的核心。如同我上次指出,因为这个崇高的指称—特别是,对于那些甚至不知道它是什么意思的人们。因为对于精力能源,我替换一个指称,在我们的时代,当我们建议时,我们会遭遇困难。这个指称并不是唯物论者,提到经济学,政治的经济学。但是让我们在这个场合不要轻视精力能源。为了让精力能源提到我们的领域,假如我们运用我刚刚说过的东西,辞说有必要在它那里获得结果。

Well then, precisely, it has! I am speaking about real energetics, about where it is
situated in science, about physics. I even at one time, and well before these laughable
objections were published, put into lectures that those involved were perfectly able to
hear because they made use of them afterwards in their own lectures. I precisely
underlined that energetics is not even conceivable otherwise than as a consequence of
discourse. It is not because it is physics that it is not clear, that, without a signifying
mapping out of the dimensions and the levels with respect to which there can be
estimated, evaluated the initial function of the labour, naturally in the sense of
(22) physics, there is not even the probability of beginning to formulate what is called
the principle of all energetics in the literal sense of this term, namely, the reference to
a constant, which is precisely what one calls energy, in relation to a closed system
which is another essential hypothesis. That one can make with that a physics and one
that functions, is indeed the proof of what is involved in a discourse that has
consequences.

呵呵,确实地,它具有结果!我正在谈论实在界的精力能源,谈论它在科学被定位在哪里,谈论物理学。我甚至在有段时间,就在这些可笑的反对被出版之前,被放进演讲之前,那些牵涉到的人们完全能够听见的讲。因为他们随后利用它们,在他们的演讲里。我确实强调,精力能源学甚至无法被构想,除了就是做为辞说的结果。这倒不是因为它是物理学,它就不清楚。假如没有成为能指的描绘这些维度,关于它们的层次,劳工的最初的功能被估计,被评估。当然,从物理学的意义,甚至没有这个可能,开始阐述所谓的一切的精力能源学的原则,从这个术语的实质意义。换句话说,提到一个常数,那确实就是我们所谓的能源,关于一个封闭的系统。那个封闭的系统是另外一个基本的假设。我们能够用那个假设当成物理学,具有功能的物理学。这确实就是证据,在具有结果的辞说所牵涉的东西。

This implies at the same time that physics implies the existence of a physicist and,
what is more, not just anyone whatsoever, a physicist who has a correct discourse in
. • ithe sense that I have articulated it. Namely, a discourse that is worth the trouble
saying and is not simply something that is all of a flutter; which is what energetics
becomes when it is applied to a usage as delusional and hazy as that made of the
notion of libido when people see in it what is called “a life drive”. In short, to say that
physics does not labour without the physicist is not, since I hope there will not be
found any understanding here to formulate the objection – which would be rather
ridiculous with what I have just stated – that this is an idealist postulate. Because
what I am in the process of saying, is that it is the discourse of physics that determines
the physicist and not the contrary. Namely, that there were never real physicists until
this discourse prevailed. Such is the sense that I give to an acceptable discourse in
what I am calling science.

同时,这暗示着,物理学暗示物理学家的存在。而且,不仅是任何人的存在。物理学家拥有正确的辞说,从我表达它的术语。换句话说,值得我们麻烦去说的辞说,不仅仅是某件闪烁不定的东西。它是精力能源学成为的东西。当它被运用到一种用法,如同力比多的观念那样的是谵妄与晕眩。当人们在它里面看见所谓的“生命的冲动”。总之,说物理学是没有物理学家的劳动,这并不是理想的假设。我希望在此,不要有任何的理解被找到,为了阐述这个反对意见。那将是相当荒谬的,用我刚刚陈述过的东西。因为我正处于言说当中的东西是,物理学的辞说决定物理学家,而不是物理学家决定物理学的辞说。换句话说,直到这个辞说大行其道,真实的物理学家才存在。因为我给予被接纳的辞说的意义,在我所谓的科学。

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