Identification 127

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

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: