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