From an other to the Other 10

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

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: