Identification 266

Identification 266
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 4

But we are dealing with a beginning, with a more simple kernel,
which I would like to depict for you, as I told you, by an
example. And I will not go looking for it very far, but in a
proverb which presents in the French tongue a particularity which
nevertheless does not spring to the eye, at least for French
speakers, the proverb is the following: “All that glitters is not
gold, tout ce qui brille n’est pas or”.

但是,我们正在处理一个开始,拥有一个更加简单的核心。我想要跟你们描述一下这个核心。如同我告诉你们的,用一个例子。我将不会前往远处寻找它,而是在法国语言里出现一个特殊性的格言。可是,这个特殊性并没有让眼睛突然看见。至少对于一位说法语的人而言,这个格言如下:「闪亮的东西未必都是黄金(外表不足凭)」。

In colloquial German for example, you must not believe that you
can be satisfied with crudely transcribing it: “alles was glanzt
ist keine Gold”. This would not be a good translation. I see
Melle Uberfreit nodding approval as she listens to me; she
approves of what I am saying: “nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

譬如,在口语的德语,你们一定不要相信,你们会满意于粗糙地铭记它:”alles was glanzt ist keine Gold”。这将不会是一个好的翻译。我看见吴伯瑞特女士点头同意,当她倾听我时。她同意我正在说的东西:”nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

(5) This may give greater satisfaction as regards its apparent
meaning, putting the accent on the alles, thanks to an
anticipation of the nicht which is not at all usual, which forces
the genius of the tongue and which, if you reflect on it, misses
the sense, because this is not the distinction that is involved.
I could use the Eulerian circles, the same ones that we used the
other day in connection with the relationship of the subject to
some case or other: all men are liars.

这可能给予更大的满足,关于它的表面的意义。它强调这个alles,由于这个nicht的预期根本就不寻常。它强迫语言的天才,假如你们反思它,这个nicht错过这个意涵。因为这并不是牵涉到的区别。我可以使用尤勒圆圈,我们前天使用的相同的圆圈,关于主体跟某个情况的这个关系:所有的人们都是说谎者。

Is it simply this that that signifies?
The fact is, to recover myself here, a
part of what glitters is in the circle
of gold and another part is not there.
Is that the meaning?

仅是这个关系在表达意涵吗?事实上,为了发现我自己在这里,一部分的闪亮的东西,在黄金的这个圆圈里。而另外一个部分则是并不在那里。那就是意义吗?

You must not believe that I am the first
among the logicians to have paused at
this structure and in truth, more than
one author who has occupied himself with
negation has paused in effect at this
problem, not at all so much from the
point of view of formal logic, which, as
you see, scarcely pauses at it except in
order to miscognise it from the point of
view of grammatical form, insisting on
the fact that the circuits are ordered in such a fashion that
there is precisely put in question the “goldness”, if I may
express myself in this way, the golden quality of what glitters.

你们一定不要相信,我是逻辑家们的第一位曾经停顿下来,针对这个结构。事实上,不仅一位作者曾经专注于探讨“否定”。他针对这个难题,实际上也停顿下来。原因根本不是因为正式逻辑的观点。如同你们看出,正式逻辑很少针对它停顿下来,除了为了误读它,从文法形式的观点。正是逻辑坚持这个事实:圆圈用这样一种形式规范秩序,以致于“黄金”确实受到质疑,请容我用这种方式表达,闪亮的东西的黄金的特质受到质疑。

The authenticity of the gold goes then in the direction of a
radical putting into question; gold here is symbolic of what
makes glitter, and if I can put it this way in order to make
myself understood, I stress, what gives an object the fascinating
colour of desire.

黄金的真诚性因此前进,朝著强烈质疑的方向。在此的黄金象征发出闪亮的东西。假如我能够用这种方式表达它,为了让我自己被人理解。我强调,给予客体具有欲望的令人著迷的色彩的东西。

What is important in a formula like this, if I can express myself
in this way – forgive me the play on words – is the point d’ORage
[the eye of the storm, the golden point] around which there turns
the question of what makes something glitter, and in a word, the
question of how much truth there is in this glittering.

在像这样的公式,重要的事情是,假如我能够用这种方式表达我自己—请你们原谅我玩弄文字—颱风眼(暴风雨的眼睛,黄金点)。环绕这个点旋转的东西,就是让某件东西闪亮的东西。总之,就是在这个闪亮里存在多少真理的问题。

27.6.62 XXVI 5
And, starting from there, of course no gold is going to be true
enough to guarantee this point around which there subsists the
function of desire.

从那里开始,当然,并没有黄金将会足够真实地保证这个点。环绕这个点,欲望的功能存在那里。

Such is the radical characteristic of this sort of object that I
call small o: it is the object put into question, in so far as
one can say that it is what interests us, us analysts, as what
(6) interests someone listening to any teaching. It is not for
nothing that I saw nostalgia arising on the lips of the person
who wanted to say: “Why does he not say”, as someone put it, “the
truth about the truth?”.

这种个客体的强烈的特性是这样,以致于我称它为小客体:就是这个小客体受到质疑。因为我们能够说,它就是我们作为精神分析家感到興趣的东西。这并非白费力气,我看见这个人的嘴唇升起怀旧的情感。他想要说:「为什么他不说出?」如同某人表达,「说出关于真理的真理?」

It is truly a great tribute to a
discourse which takes place every week in this senseless position
of being here behind a table in front of you articulating this
sort of account which one is quite content normally to see always
avoiding such a question.

这确实是让人受宠若惊,对于每周举行的这个辞说,在这个无足轻重的位置,在你们面前的桌子背后,表达这种的描述。正常来说,我们相当满意于看见总是逃避这样的问题。

If it were not a matter of the analytic object, namely the object
of desire, raising such a question would never even be dreamt of,
except on the lips of a Huron who might imagine that when one
comes to the University it is in order to know “the truth about
the truth”. Now this is what is involved in analysis. One
could say that it is the mirage of this that we are, often in
spite of ourselves, embarrassed to polish up in the spirit of
those to whom we address ourselves. We find ourselves, I am
really saying, embarrassed, like the poison of the proverbial
apple; and nevertheless it is really what is there, this is what
we are dealing with, it is on it, in so far as it is at the heart
of the structure, it is on it that there is brought to bear what
we call castration.

若问题并不是精神分析的客体,也就是欲望的客体,那么提出这样一个问题就不会被梦想。除了出之于一位胡伦的大学生,他可能想像,当一个人进入大学,那就是为了知道“关于真理的真理”。现在,这就是精神分析牵涉的东西。我们能够说,就是这个关于真理的真理的幻景,我们经常身不由已地,尴尬地加油添醋,当我们意气风风地跟人侃侃而谈。我确实是说,我们发现自己感到尴尬,就像谚语所说的有毒的蘋果。可是,这确实存在那里的东西。这就是我们正在处理的东西。就在它上面。因为它将是这个结构的核心。我们所谓的阉割,就是跟它息息相关。

It is precisely in so far as there is a hard, suggestive
structure which turns around a kind of cut – the one which I
represented for you in this way – that there is at the heart of
phantastical identification this organizing object, this inducing
object. And it could not be otherwise as regards the whole
world of anxiety with which we have to deal, which is the object
defined as object of castration.

确实是因为有一个困难的暗示的结构,环绕一种的切割旋转。我用这个方式跟你们代表的这个结构。在幻影的认同的核心,这个组织的客体,这个诱拐的客体。它不可能是别的东西,关于焦虑的这整个的世界。我们必须处理的焦虑的世界。那是被定义为阉割的客体的东西。

Here I want to remind you about the surface from which there is
borrowed this part which I described for you the last time as
enucleated, which gives the very image of the circle in terms of
which this object can be defined. I want to image for you what
the property of this circle with the double circuit is. Magnify
progressively the two lobes of this cut so that they both pass,
as I might say, behind the anterior surface. There is nothing
new about that, it is the way I already demonstrated to you of
displacing this cut. One has only in effect to displace it and
one makes it appear very easily that the complementary part of
the surface, with respect to what is isolated around what one can
call the two central leaves, or the two petals, to make them
connect up with one another – the inaugural metaphor of the cover
of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ book, with this very image – what remains
is an apparent lotus-surface.

在此,我想要提醒你们,关于这个表面。我上次跟你们描述的这个部分,就是从这个表面借用过来,作为是被表达的东西。它给予圆圈的这个意象。用这个圆圈的术语,这个客体被定义。我想要跟你们描绘,具有双重循环的这个圆圈的特性是什么。请你们将这个切割的两个肺页逐渐放大,这样,它们两个都会通过前面的表面的背后,我不妨说。关于这一点并不是什么新东西。那就是我已经跟你们证明的方式,关于取代这个切割。我们实际上只必须要取代它,然后我们很容易让它出现,这样,这个表面的辅助的部分,关于被孤立出来的东西,环绕我们所谓的两个中央的叶片,或两个花瓣,为了让它们互相联接。这是克劳德 李维斯陀的书的封面的开始的隐喻。剩余下来的东西,就是外表的莲花的表面。

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: