From an other to the Other 9

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

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: