From an other to the Other 42

从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

8.1.69 VI 9

The progress of this logical practice has allowed to be assured, but

only thanks to the use of formalisation processes, namely, by putting

into two columns, as I might say, what is stated from the first discourse

of mathematics, and this other discourse subjected to this double

condition of getting rid of equivocation and of being reduced to a pure

writing.

这个逻辑实践的进展已经容许作为确定，但是由于形式主义的过程的使用，换句话说，凭借放进两个专栏，我不妨说，从数学的第一个辞说所被陈述的东西，以及这个其他的辞说，隶属于这个双重的情况的辞说，它废除模棱两可，并且被化简成为一个纯粹的书写。

It is starting from there and only starting from there, namely,

from something that distinguishes the first discourse, the one in which

mathematics has boldly made all this progress and without having, a

curious thing, to correct it epoch by epoch, in a way that ruins the

acquisitions generally accepted in preceding epochs, in opposition to

this discourse pinpointed on this, occasion, and very wrongly in my

view, by the term of meta-language —

就是从那里开始，仅是从那里开始，换句话说，从某件区别第一个辞说的东西开开始，数学大胆大从事这个进展的这个辞说。耐人寻味地，它并没有需要按照每个世代改造它，将前一个世代通常被接纳的获得的东西毁灭，跟在这个场合强调的这个辞说对立的东西毁灭。依我的观点，那是错误地，凭借后设语言的术语–

the use of this formal language

(77) called, for its part, no less wrongly, language – because it is from

something that a practice isolates as a closed field in what is quite

simply language, the language in which mathematical discourse could

not properly speaking be stated.

这个正式语言的使用，就它本身而言，同样错误地称为语言—因为这是从某件东西开始，一个实践将它孤立出来，作为是一个封闭的场域，在仅是属于语言的东西。贴切地说，数学的辞说并无法被陈述的语言。

It is starting from there, I am saying,

that Godel shows that in this apparently most certain system of the

mathematical domain, that of arithmetical discourse, the very supposed

7 . . . . consistency of discourse implies what limits it, namely,

incompleteness. Namely, that by starting even from the hypothesis of

consistency, there will appear somewhere a formula, and it is enough

for there to be one for there to be many others, to which it cannot, by

the very paths of the accepted proof qua law of the system, be

answered yes or no. The first phase, the first theorem

就是从那里开始，我正在说，歌德尔显示，在数学领域的这个明显最为确定的系统，算术的辞说的系统，辞说被假设的一致性暗示着限制它的东西。换句话说，不完整。换句话说，凭借从一致性的假设开始，在某个地方会出现某个公式。为了让许多的其他公式存在，这一个公式存在就足够了。凭借被接纳作为系统的法则的途径，它无法被回答是或否。第一个部分，第一个公理。

The second phase, the second theorem Here I must abbreviate. Not

simply can the system, I mean the arithmetical system, not therefore

assure its consistency except by making of it its very incompleteness,

but it cannot, I am saying in the very hypothesis grounded on its

consistency, demonstrate this consistency within itself.

第二个部分，第二个公理。在此，我必须缩减。不仅因为这个系统无法因此确定它的一致性，我指的是算术的系统，除了凭借说明它，关于它的不完整。但是它无法在它自己内部证明这个一致性，我是说，在根据它的一致性作为基础的假设里。

I took a little trouble to get across here something that is not assuredly

properly speaking our field, I mean the psychoanalytic field, if it is

defined by some olfactory apprehension or other. But let us not forget

that at the moment of telling you that it is not properly speaking about

what the sentence implied that I am finishing with another subject, you

see clearly where I land, on this vital point. Namely, that it is

unthinkable to operate in the psychoanalytic field, without giving its

correct status to what is involved in the subject.

我费力一些力气，在此传达某件东西，恰当而言，这个东西并不确定是我们的领域。我指的是精神分析领域。假如它被定义，根据某个辨别味道的理解。但是让我们不要忘记，在告诉你们的时刻，恰当而言，它并不是关于这个句子暗示的东西，我正在完成跟另外一位主体。你们清楚地看见我到达的地方，在这个重要的时刻。换句话说，这是匪夷所思的，在精神分析的领域运作，而不给出它的正确的地位，给予主体所牵涉的东西。

8.1.69 VI 10

What do we find in the experience of this mathematical logic? What,

if not precisely this residue where the presence of the subject is

designated? At least is this not what a mathematician himself,

certainly one of the greatest, Von Neuman, seems to imply in making

this rather imprudent reflection that the limitations, I mean the

logically tenable ones, it is not a matter of any antinomy, of any of

these classical mind games that allow it to be grasped that the term

obsolete, for example, is an obsolete term

这个数学的逻辑的经验，我们发现什么呢？它难道不就是这个残渣，在那里，主体的存在被指明？至少，这难道不是数学家自己似乎在暗示的东西？他确实是其中一位最伟大的数学家，范 纽曼。当他从事这个相当不谨慎的反思。这些限制2，我指的是逻辑上自圆其说的限制，那并不是任何对立的问题，任何这些古典心灵遊戏的问题，这些心灵遊戏让它能够被理解，譬如，过时的这个术语是一个过时的术语。

And that starting from there

we are going to be able to speculate on the predicates that are applied

to themselves and those that are not so applied, with all that this

involves as a paradox. That is not what is at stake. What is at stake is

something that constructs a limit that uncovers nothing, no doubt, that

mathematical discourse has itself not discovered since it is on this field

of discovery that it tests out a method that allows it to question it about

something that is all the same essential.

从那里开始，我们将能够推理，根据这个陈述, 被运用到它们自己的陈述，以及那些没有那么被运用的陈述与这个牵涉作为悖论的一切东西。那并不是岌岌可危的东西。岌岌可危的东西是某件建构限制的东西。无可置疑，这个限制并没有揭露任何东西，数学的辞说它自己还没有发现的东西，因为在这个发现的领域，它测试一个方法。这个方法让它质疑它，关于某件东西，仍然是基本的东西。

Namely, up to what point can

it account for itself up to what point can its coincidence with its own

domain be affected if these terms had a sense, while it is the very

domain in which the notion of content had properly speaking been

(78) emptied. To say with Von Neuman that after all this is all very

fine because it bears witness to the fact that mathematicians have still a

reason to be there, since it is with what presents itself there in its

necessity, its proper ananke, its necessities of detour, that they will

indeed have their role. It is because something is missing that the

desire of the mathematician is going to come into play.

换句话说，直到什么时刻，它才能够说明它自己，直到什么时刻，它跟它自己的领域的巧合才能够被影响，假如这些术语具有意义。虽然，这就是这个领域，内容的观念恰当而言已经被掏空。就范 纽曼而言，毕竟，这是非常精致的，因为它见证到这个事实，数学家依旧有理由在那里。因为使用呈现它自己在那里的东西，在它的必要性，它的恰当的ananke，它的迂回的必要性，它的专门术语“必阿南刻（必然性ananke）”，它们确实拥有它们的角色。因为某件东西是失落，数学家的欲望将会运作。

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

## Leave a Reply