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

## Leave a Reply