Identification 268

Identification 268
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 8

This, let us say it, demonic rather than divine Goethean
intuition which made him moreover read in the skull found on the
Lido the completely imaginary shape of Werther or forge the
theory of colours, in short leaves for us the traces of an
activity of which the least one can say is that it is cosmogenic,
engendering the oldest illusions of the micro-macroscopic analogy
and nevertheless still captivating for a spirit so close to us.
What does that depend on?

不妨这样说,这个恶魔,而非神性的歌德的直觉,使他进一步阅读,用在Lido发现的这个头盖骨,阅读出这个完全是想像的Werther的形状,或是铸造厂颜色的理论。总之,它留给我们这个活动的这些痕迹。对于这个活动,我们至少能够说,它是宇宙起源学,产生最古老的幻觉,极微与极大宇宙的类比。可是,它仍然是令人著迷,对于如此靠近我们的精神。那依靠什么?

To what do we attribute the
exceptional fascination that the personal drama of Goethe
exercises on us if not to the flowering as central to that drama,
in his case, of desire. “Warum Goethe liebst Frederique?” wrote,
as you know, in an article, one of the survivors of the first
generation, Theodor Reik.

我们将这个例外的著迷归属于什么?歌德的个人的戏剧对于我们运作的著迷,在这个情况,难道不就是针对欲望的怒放,作为戏剧的中心?”Warum Goethe liebst Frederique?”你们知道,希奥德 雷克,是第一代的其中一位余生者,他这样写道。

The specificity and the fascinating character of Goethe’s
personality is that in it we read in all its presence the
identification of the object of desire to what must be renounced
(9) in order that the world as world should be delivered to us.
I very sufficiently recalled the structure of this case by
showing in it the analogy with the one developed by Freud in the
story of the Ratman, in “The individual myth of the neurotic”.

歌德的人格的明确性与令人著迷的个性是这样,在它里面,在它所有的存在里,我们阅读到欲望的客体的认同于必须被放弃的东西,为了作为世界的这个世界,应该被递交给我们。我非常充分地提醒这个情况的结构,凭借在它里面显示这个类似性,跟弗洛依德发展的这个情况,在鼠人的个案,在“神经症者的个人神话”。

Or rather it was published somewhere without my consent, because
I neither revised nor corrected this text, which makes it almost
unreadable; nevertheless it has been hanging around here and
there and one can find the broad lines of it

或者,它在某个地方被出版,没有经过我的同意,因为我从来没有订正,也没有改正这个文本。这让它几乎无法被阅读。可是,它它一直到处垂悬著,我们能够找到它的这些宽广的字里行间。

In this complementary relationship of o, the object of a
constitutive castration where our object as such is situated,
with this remainder and where we cannot read everything, and
especially our figure i(o), it is this that I tried to illustrate
this year for you at the high point of my discourse.

在客体的这个辅助的关系,体质上的阉割的客体,在那里,我们的客体的本身被定位置,用这个剩余物。在那里,我们无法阅读每一样东西。特别是我们的魅影理想自我i(0)的图形。今年,我尝试跟你们说明的这个图形,在我的辞说的高潮。

In the specular illusion, in the fundamental miscognition with
which we always have to deal, does o takes on the function of
specular image under the form of i of o even though, as I might
say it has no similarity with it. It could not in any way read
its image in it for the good reason that, if this $ barred is
something, it is not the complement of small i factor of small o,
it could just as well be the cause of it, we will say – and I am
employing this term intentionally, because for some time
precisely, ever since the categories of logic have been shaken a
little, cause – good or bad – has not in any case had a good
press and people prefer to avoid speaking about it.

在这个魅影理想自我的幻觉里,在这个基本的错误体认里,我们总是必须处理的错误的体认。这个o(客体)具有魅影意象的功能吗?在这个i(理想)的形式之下?即使客体跟理想并没有类似的地方,我不妨这样说。它根本就无法阅读在它里面的它的意象,理由很充分。假如被划杠的主体$,是某件东西,那并不是小客体o的小i(魅影理想)的因素的辅助;它同样会是它的原因。我们将这样说—我正在刻意地使用这个术语。因为确实有段时间,自从逻辑的范畴稍微有点被动摇—原因,无论是好或坏的原因-无论如何被曾有过充分的压力,人们宁可避避谈论原因。

27.6.62 XXVI 9

And in effect there is scarcely anybody but we who can find our
way in this function whose ancient shade in short one cannot
approach after the mental progress that has taken place, except
by seeing in it some sort of identical of everything that is
manifested as effects, but when they are still veiled.

实际上,除了我们,几乎没有任何人能够找到我们的途径,在这个功能里。总之,我们无法接近这个功能的古代的阴影,经过曾经发生过的精神的进展之后。除了凭借在它里面看见某种的认同,每一样被展示为结果的东西,但是,它们依据被遮蔽。

And of course this has nothing satisfying about it, except perhaps if
precisely it is not by being at the place of something, by
cutting all its effects, that the cause sustains its drama. If
there is as well moreover a cause which is worth our while
becoming attached to, at least by our attention, it is not always
and in advance a lost cause.

当然,这根本就没有让人满意的东西,或许除了,假如确实它并不是凭借处于某件东西的位置,凭借切割所有它的结果,这个原因维持它的戏剧。假如也有一个原因,值得我们跟它连系一块。至少凭借我们的注意力,它未必总是一个预先失落的原因。

Therefore we can articulate that if there is something on which
we ought to put the accent rather than avoiding it, it is that
(10) the function of the partial object could not in any way be
reduced for us, if what we call partial object is what designates
the point of repression because of its loss.

因此,我们能够表达,假如有某件东西,我们应该强调,而不是避免它。那就是,部分客体的这个功能,对于我们,根本就无法被化简。假如我们所谓的部分的客体就是指明压抑的这个时刻,因为它的失落。

And it is starting from there that there takes root the illusion
of the cosmicity of the world. This acosmic point of desire in
so far as it is designated by the object of castration, is what
we ought to preserve as the pivotal point, the centre of every
elaboration of what we have to accumulate as facts concerning the
constitution of the objectal world.

就是从那里开始,这个世界的宇宙的幻觉在那里生根。欲望的非宇宙的时刻,因为欲望被阉割的客体所指明。那就是我们应该保存的东西,作为是枢纽的点,我们必须累积的东西的每个建构的中心,作为关于客体的世界的建构的事实。

But this object o that we
see arising at the point of the failure of the Other, at the
point of the loss of the signifier because this loss is the loss
of this object itself, of the never rediscovered member of the
dismembered Horus, how can we not give this object what I will
call by way of parody its reflexive property, as I might say,
because it is from it that it starts, that it is in as much as
the subject is first of all and uniquely essentially cutting of
this object that something can be born which is this interval
between the flesh and the hide between Wahrnehmung and
Bewusstsein, between perception and consciousness which is
Selbstbewusstsein.

但是,我们看见这个客体o出现于大他者的失败的时刻,能指的失落的时刻,因为这个失落就是客体本身的失落,永远没有重新发现的被肢解的荷鲁斯的失落。我们如何给予这个客体,我将称为是它的反身的特性,作为模拟,我不妨说,因为它就是从它开始,它同样在这个主体里。首先,独特地,它基本上是这个客体的切割,某件东西能够被诞生,那就是这个中间间隔,处于肉身与皮肤之间的中间间隔,处于知觉与意识之间的中间间隔,处于感知与意识(自我意识)之间的中间间隔。

It is here that it is worth stating its place
in an ontology founded on our experience. You will see that it
rejoins here a formula commented on at length by Heidegger, in
its pre-Socratic origin.

就在这里,陈述它的位置是值得的,以我们的经验作为基础的本体论。你们将会看见,它在此重新加入一个公式,被海德格冗长评论的一个公式,起源于它的前-苏格拉底时期。

The relationship of this object to the image of the world which
orders it, constitutes what Plato called properly speaking the
dyad provided we notice that in this dyad the subject $ barred
and the o are at the same side: to auto einai kai noiig. This
formula which for a long time was used to confuse what is not
sustainable, being and knowledge, means nothing other than that.

这个客体跟世界的意象的关系,组成柏拉图所谓的,恰当而言的二元关系,只要我们注意到,在这个二元关系,被划杠的主体$与这个客体o在相同的一边:to auto einai kai noiig。这个公式长久以来被使用来混淆无法被维持的东西,生命实存与知识,它实实在在就是那个意思。

Compared to the correlative little o, to what remains when the
constitutive object of the phantasy has separated itself, being
and thinking are on the same side, on the side of o. Small o is
being in so far as it is essentially missing in the text of
the world. And that is why around little o there can slide
everything that is called the return of the repressed, namely
that here there is betrayed the true truth which interests us and
which is always the object of desire, in so far as the whole of
humanity, the whole of humanism is constructed to make us miss
it.

跟这个相对的小客体o比较起来,跟剩余的东西比较起来,当幻见的组成的客体已经分开它自己,生命实存与思想在相同一边,在客体的这一边。小客体就是生命实存,因为它基本上是失落,在世界的文本里。那就是为什么环绕这个小客体,每一样被称为是被压抑的东西的回转的东西会滑动。换句话说,这个真实的真理被背叛,我们感到興趣的这个真实的真理,那总是欲望的客体。因为整个的人类,整个的人类被建构,就是为了让我们失落它。

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: