Identification 264

Identification 264
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
Seminar 26: Wednesday 27 June 1962
Today in the context of the theoretical teaching that we have
succeeded this year in going through together, I am indicating to
you that I have to choose my axis, as I might say, and I will put
the accent on the support-formula of the third type of
identification which I noted for you a long time ago, since the
time of the graph, under the form of $ which you now know how to
read as cut of big i t o [or: cut of big 0]. Not what is
implicit, nodal in at namely the$, the point thanks to which the
eversion from one into the other can take place, thanks to which
the two terms present themselves as identical, like the back and
the front, not just any back whatsoever and not just any front.

今天,在理论教学的文本,我们今年成功地在一块经历过的文本。我正在跟你们指示,我必须选择我的轴心,不妨这样说。我将强调第三种类的认同的支持-公式。很久以前,我就跟你们提到,自从这个图形的时刻,在被划杠的$的形式下,你们现在知道如何阅读它,作为是大他者O的切割。倒不是所被暗示的东西,在这个点的节点,也就是,这个被划杠的$。由于这个点,从一个点到另外一个点的翻转会发生。由于这个点,这两个术语呈现它们自己作为认同,就像背面与前面。不仅是任何背面,也不仅是任何前面。

Otherwise I would not have needed to show you at the appropriate
place what it is when it represents the double cut on this
particular surface whose topology I tried to show you in the
cross-cap.

否则我本来没有这个需要跟你们显示那是什么东西,在这个适当的地方,当它代表这个双重的切割时,在这个特殊的表面。这个表面的拓扑图形,我尝试跟你们显示,在交叉帽。

This point designated here is the point (jj thanks to which the
circle indicated by this little cut can be for us the mental
schema of an original identification; this point – I believe I
have sufficiently indicated its structural function in my last
discourses – can, up to a certain point harbour for you too many
satisfying properties; here is this phallus with this magical
function which is indeed the one that our discourse for a long
time now implies in it. It would be a little too easy to find
(2) our final resting point here.

在此被设计的这个点是这个点(由于这个点,用这个小的切割指示的这个圆圈,对于我们而言,有时是原初的认同的精神的基模,这个点—我相信我已经充分地指示它的结构的功能,在我前几次的辞说—直到某个时刻,这个点能够替你们怀抱太多的令人满意的属性。在此是这个阳具,具有这个魔术的功能。这个功能确实就是我们的辞说长久以来在它里面暗示的这个功能。要在这里找到一个休息的点,将是稍微过于容易。

This is why today I want to put the accent on this point, namely
on the function of o, the small o in so far as it is at the same
time properly speaking what can allow there to be conceived the
function of the object in analytic theory, namely this object
which in psychical dynamics is what structures for us the whole
progressive-regressive process, what we have to deal with in our
relationships of the subject to his psychical reality, but is
also our object, the object of analytic science.

这就是为什么今天我想要强调这一点。也就是,强调O的这个功能。因为它有时恰当地说,就是能够让精神分析理论里的客体的功能被构想的东西。换句话说,这个客体在心灵动力学里,是替我们架构整个的进展与退行的过程。我们必须处理的东西,在我们的主体跟他的心灵的现实的关系。但是它也是我们的客体,精神分析科学的客体。

27.6.62 XXVI 2
And what I want to put in the foreground, in what I am going to
say to you about it today, is that if we want to qualify this
object in a properly logical perspective, I stress: logical
(logicisante), we have nothing better to say about it except the
fact that it is the object of castration. I mean by this, I
specify, compared to the other functions of the object defined up
to now. Because if one can say that the object in the world, in
so far as it is discerned there, is the object of a privation,
one can also say that the object is the object of frustration.
And I am going to try to show you precisely how this object of
ours is distinguished from it.

我想要放置在前景的东西,在我今天想要跟你们谈论关于它的东西是,假如我们想要给予这个东西的品质,用合宜到逻辑的观点,我强调:逻辑,我们没有更好的东西来说它,除了就是这个事实:它是阉割的客体。我指的是,我指明的这个客体,跟迄今被定义的这个客体的其他功能比较起来。因为假如我们能够说,在世界的这个客体,因为它在那里被觉察,那是一个被剥夺的客体,我们也能够说,这个客体就是挫折的客体。我将要尝试跟你们确实显示,我们的这个客体如何被区别跟它的不同。

It is quite clear that if this object is an object of logic it
cannot have been up to now completely absent, undisclosed in all
the attempts made to articulate as such what is called logic.
Logic has not always existed in the same form. The one which
perfectly satisfied, fulfilled us up to Kant, who was still
indulgent towards it, this formal logic, born one day from the
pen of Aristotle exercised this captivation, this fascination
until people devoted themselves, in the last century, to what
could be revised in it in detail. It was noticed for example
that many things were missing in it as regards quantification.
It is certainly not what was added to it which is interesting,
but the way it held us. And many of the things that people
thought should be added to it only go in a singularly sterile
direction.

显而易见地,假如这个客体就是逻辑的客体,它不可能迄今完全是缺席,没有被泄露出来,当我们尽一切企图要表达所谓的逻辑的自身。逻辑未必都以相同的形式存在。直到康德,让我们完全满足,完全满意的这个逻辑。康德依旧留恋不忘地朝向它,这个正式的逻辑。这个正式逻辑有一天从亚里斯多德的笔端诞生出来。这个正式逻辑运用这个迷惑,这个著迷,直到上个世纪,人们专注地探讨在它里面能够详细被修正的东西。譬如,有人注意到,关于数量化,在正式逻辑里,缺失很多的东西。耐人寻味的,这确实并不是被增添给它的东西,而是它拥有我们的方式。人们认为应该被增添给它的许多东西,仅是朝着非常贫瘠的方向前进。

In fact, it is in the reflection that analysis imposes on us as
regards these powers of Aristotelian logic which were so
(3) insistent for such a long time, that there can be presented
for us the interest of logic. The gaze of someone who strips
formal Aristotelian logic of all its so fascinating details must
– I repeat to you – abstract itself from the decisive things it
has contributed in terms of a cut in the mental world in order
even to understand truly what preceded it, for example the
possibility of the whole Platonic dialectic which is always read
as if formal logic were already there, which completely distorts
our reading of it. But let us leave this.

事实上,精神分析赋加在我们身上的反思,关于亚里斯多德的逻辑的这些力量。长久时间以来,这些力量是如此坚持,以致对于我们而言,逻辑的興趣能够被呈现。某个人将正式的亚里斯多德的逻辑剥夺掉它所有如此令人着迷的细节—我跟你重复一遍—这个人的凝视必须抽离出来,从它曾经贡献的这些决定性的事情。用精神世界的切割的术语,甚至为了真实地理解早先于它存在的东西。譬如,整个柏拉图的辩证法的可能性。整个柏拉图的辩证法总是被阅读,好像正式的逻辑已经在那里。它完全地扭曲我们对于它的阅读。但是让我们离开这个。

The Aristotelian object – because this indeed is what it must be
called – has precisely, as I might say, the property of being
able to have properties which belong to it alone: its attributes.
And it is these that define classes.

亚里斯多德的客体—因为这确实是它必须被称呼的东西—我不妨说,亚里斯多德的客体确实拥有这个属性:它能够拥有仅是属于它的这些属性:它的特性。就是这些属性定义分类。

Now this is a construction which he only owes to a confusion of
what I would call – for want of anything better – the categories
of being and having. This would deserve long developments and,
in order to get you to take this step I am obliged to have
recourse to an example which will serve as a support.

现在,这是一个建构,亚里斯多德仅是将这个结构归咎于存在与拥有的范畴的混淆。我这样称呼,因为欠缺更贴切的表达。这将值得长期的发展。为了让你们採取这个步骤,我不得不诉诸于一个例子,充当支持。

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: