From an other to the Other30

从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

So then we have another quarter of an hour and the little note that I

received goes as follows: “Last Wednesday you related, without

specifying, the ordered pair and a signifier represents the subject fo r

another signifier, (S S) ”. That is quite true. That is why no doubt

my correspondent put a bar underneath and underneath the bar “Why?”

with a question mark. Underneath the why another bar, then marked

by two big points or more exactly two little circles filled $ – > S

in in black. “When the ordered pair is introduced into

mathematics some force is necessary to create it.”

因此，我们还有15分钟，我收到一个小字条，内容如下：「上个星期三，你没有指明地描述能指的秩序的配对，能指针对另一个能指代表主体（S’S）。那是相当正确的。那就是为什么无可置疑地，我的对话者在底下画一条杠，在这条杠底下用一个问号“？“(为什么)。在这个问号底下，还有另一条杠，然后用两个大点标示，或更加贴切地是，用两个小圆圈用黑色填满。「当有秩序的配对被介绍进入数学，需要某个力量，才能创造它。」

From this I recognise that the person who sent me this sheet knows what she

is saying, namely, that she has a least a shadow, and probably more, of

mathematical instruction. It is quite true. One begins by articulating

(55) the function of what a set is and if one does not introduce into it,

in effect, the function of the ordered pair by this sort of force that in

logic is^alled an axiom, well then, there is nothing more to be done

with it than what you have first defined as a set. In parenthesis, one

adds on – either directly or indirectly – the set has two elements. “The

result o f this force is to create one signifier that replaces the coexistence

o f two signifiers”.

从这里，我体会到，送给我这个纸条的这个人知道她正在说什么。换句话说，她至少拥有一个阴影。更有可能的，是数学教学的阴影。这完全真实。我们开始表达数学集合是什么的功能。实际上，假如我们并没有介绍有秩序配对的这个功能进入它，用逻辑上所谓的定理的这种力量。呵呵，对于它，我们所能做的事情仅是你们首先定义为数学集合的东西。在括弧里，我们补充—无论是直接或间接地补充—这个集合具有两个元素：「这个力量的结果就是要创造一个能指，取代两个能指的共同的存在。」

This is quite correct. A second remark

“The ordered pair determines the two components, while in the

formula a signifier represents the subject fo r another signifier, it would

be astonishing fo r a subject to determine two signifiers.” I only have a

quarter of an hour and nevertheless I hope to have the time to clarify as

it should be done, because it is not difficult, what I stated the last time,

which proves that I did not state it adequately since someone, who as

you can see is very serious, questions me in these terms.

这是相当正确的。第二个谈论「有秩序的这个配对决定这两个成分。在公式里，一个能指针对另外一个能指代表主体。另一方面，假如主体决定两个能指，则是令人大吃一惊。」我仅剩15分钟。可是，我希望拥有时间澄清，依照它应该被做到。因为这并不困难，我上次陈述的东西，证明我并没有充分地陈述它。因为你们看出，有某个非常认真的人，用这些术语质疑我。

I am therefore going to write on the board – whatever may be the

inconvenience that was pointed out to me the last time about using the

board which ought to be put there so that everyone can see what I am

writing and that is not going to happen today given the difficulties that

conditioned my arriving late – this: At no time did I subsume

the co-existence o f two signifiers into one subject.

我因此将要写在黑板上—上次跟我指出的这个怎样的不方便，关于使用黑板。这个黑板应该被放在那里，这样每个人才能够看见我正在书写的东西。今天不会发生这样的事情，考虑到这些困难，造成我晚到的困难。这个公式《S1-S2》。我从来没有将两个能指的共同存在，放进一个主体里。

If I introduce the

ordered pair, as my interlocutor surely knows, I write for example the

following: , these two signs by a lucky chance find themselves

to be the two pieces of my diamond shape when they are connected up,

these two signs only serve on this occasion to very specifically write

that this is an ordered pair.

假如我介绍这个有秩序的配对，如同我的对谈者确实知道的。譬如，我书写以下的公式：《Sa-S2》。这两个符号很幸运地发现它们自己成为我的鑽石形状的两个，当它们被联接，在这个场合，这两个符号仅是用来明确地书写：这是一个有秩序的配对。

The translation in the form of a set, I mean

articulated in the sense of the benefit expected from the force in

question, is to translate this into a set whose two elements, the

elements in a set being always themselves the set, you see there being

repeated the bracket sign {(Si), (Si S2)}, the second element of this set

{Si, S2}, an ordered pair is a set which has two elements, a set formed

from the first element of the pair and a second set; they are then both

one and the other subsets formed from the two elements of the ordered

pair. {(S,), (S,, S2)}

这个数学集合的形状的翻译，我指的是它被表达，用受到置疑的力量所期望的利益的意义。这是要将这个翻译成为一个集合，这个集合的两个元素，集合里的元素自身总就是集合。你们看见这个括弧顶符号被重复：{(Si), (Si S2)}。这个集合的第二个元素{Si, S2}，有秩序的配对就是具有两个元素的集合。它们因此一个与另外一个次集合。这个次集合被形成，用有秩序的配的的这两个元素：{(S,), (S,, S2)}

Far from the subject here in any way subsuming the two signifiers in

question, you see, I suppose, how easy it is to say that the signifier Si

here does not stop representing the subject as my definition the

signifier represents a subject fo r another signifier articulates it, while

the second subset makes present what my correspondent call this “coexistence”,

namely, in its broadest form this form of relation that one

can call “knowledge”.

这个主体丝毫没有包括这两个受到质疑的能指，你们明白，我认为，我们很容易说：在此的这个能指S1并没有停止代表主体，作为我的定义所表达：一个能指针对另外一个能指代表主体。第二个次集合让我的对谈者所为的“共同存在“出现。换句话说，以它最广义的形式，我们称为”知识“的关系的这个形式。

The question that I am posing in this

(56) connection and in the most radical form, whether a knowledge is

conceivable that reunites this conjunction of two subsets in a single

one, in such a way that they can be under the name of O, of the big O,

identical to the conjunction as it is here articulated in a knowledge of

the two signifiers in question.

关于这点，用最强烈的形式，我正在提出的这个问题，无论知识是否能够被构想，重新统一这两个次集合的联接，用单一的次集合，以这样的方式，它们能够在大他者O的名义之下，这个认同于联接的大他者O。因为它在此被表达，用受到质疑的两个能指的知识。

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com