Analytical Psychology 3

Analytical Psychology
分析心理学
Karl Jung
卡尔 荣格
III
THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW:
THE WILL TO POWER

另外一个观点：
权力意志

42 The case of Nietzsche faces us with the question: What did
the collision with the shadow, namely the will to power, reveal to him? Is it to be regarded as something bogus, a symptom of repression? Is the will to power genuine or merely secondary? If the conflict with the shadow had let loose a flood of sexual fantasies, the matter would be perfectly clear; but it happened otherwise. The “Kern des Pudels” was not Eras but the power of the ego. From this we would have to conclude that what was repressed was not Eros but the will to power. There is in my opinion no ground for the assumption that Eras is genuine and the will to power bogus. The will to power is surely just as mighty a daemon as Eros, and just as old and original.

尼采的情况让我们面对这个问题。跟阴影的冲突。换句话说，权力意志对他启示什么？权力意志就是被认为是某件欺骗的东西，压抑的症状吗？权力意志是真诚或仅是次要？假如跟阴影的这个冲突释放出性的幻想的洪流，事情将是完全清楚。但是，情况发生并不相同。“Kern des Pudels”（浮士德）谜团的解答并不是性爱，而是自我的权力。从这里，我们将必须下个结论：所被压抑的东西并不是性爱，而是权力意志。依我之见，这并不构成理由要假设：性爱是真诚，而权力意志是欺骗。权力意志确实是跟性爱一样强大的恶魔，同样古老与原初。

43 A life like Nietzsche’s, lived to its fatal end with rare consist-
ency in accordance with the underlying instinct for power, can¬not simply be explained away as bogus. Otherwise one would make oneself guilty of the same unfair judgment that N ietzsche passed on his polar opposite, Wagner: “Everything about him is false. What is genuine is hidden or decorated. He is an actor, in every good and bad sense of the word.” Why this prejudice? Be¬cause Wagner embodies that other elemental urge which Nie¬tzsche overlooked, and upon which Freud’s psychology is built.

像尼采过的这样的生命，他活到生命的终极结束，带着罕见的一致性，符合作为潜在基础的权力的本能。权力意志不能仅是作为欺骗被表达。否则，我们将会让自己犯下相同不公平的判断，如同尼采对于他的极端对立者华格纳所犯的错误的判断。「关于华格纳的每样东西都是虚假。真诚的东西被隐藏或被装饰。华格纳是位演员，就演员的好与坏的实在意义而言。」为什么会有这样的偏见？因为华格纳具体表现另外一个元素的渴望，那是尼采所忽略的。弗洛依德的心理学则是以它作为基础来建造。

If we inquire whether Freud knew of that other instinct, the urge to power, we find that he conceived it under the name of “ego-instinct.” But these “ego-instincts” occupy a rather pokey little corner in his psychology compared with the broad, all too broad, development of the sexual factor. In reality human na¬ture bears the burden of a terrible and unending conflict between the principle of the ego and the principle of instinct: the ego all barriers and restraint, instinct limitless, and both principles of equal might. In a certain sense man may count himself happy that he is “conscious only of the single urge,” and therefore it is only prudent to guard against ever knowing the other. But if he does learn to know the other, it is all up with him: he then enters upon the Faustian conflict. In the first part of Faust Goethe has shown us what it means to accept instinct and in the second part what it means to accept the ego and its weird uncon-
34

THE OTHER POINT OF VIEw: THE WILL TO POWER
scious world.

假如我们询问弗洛依德是否知道那个其它的本能，权力的渴望，我们发现，他构想它，以“自我-本能”的名义。但是，这些“自我-本能”，在他的心理学里，佔据相当窄小的角落，相较于那些宽广，太过于宽广的性的因素的发展。实际上，人类的天性承受可怕与无穷尽的冲突的负担，处于自我的原则与本能的原则之间的冲突。自我处处处障碍与约束，而本能则是无限。两个原则具有相等的力量。从某个意义言，人可能认为他是快乐，他“仅是意识到他单一的渴望”。因此，假如人确实获得知道另外一个元素力量，他就完蛋了：他会陷入浮士德的冲突。在“浮士德”的第一部分，歌德跟我们显示，接受本能是什么意思, 然后在第二部分，接受自我与自我的古怪的无意识的世界是什么意思。

All that is insignificant, paltry, and cowardly in u cowers and shrinks from this acceptance-and there is an excel lent pretext for this: we discover that the “other” in us is indeec “another,” a real man, who actually thinks, does, feels, and de sires all the things that are despicable and odious. In this wa; we can seize hold of the bogey and declare war on him to om satisfaction. Hence those chronic idiosyncrasies of which the his tory of morals has preserved some fine examples. A particularl) transparent example is that already cited-“N ietzsche contn Wagner, contra Paul,” etc. But daily life abounds in such cases By this ingenious device a man may save himself from the Faus tian catastrophe, before which his courage and his strength mighl well fail him. A whole man, however, knows that his bitteresl foe, or indeed a host of enemies, does not equal that one worS1 adversary, the “other self” who dwells in his bosom. N ietzsch( had Wagner in himself) and that is why he envied him Parsifal; but, what was worse, he, Saul, also had Paul in him. TherefoH Nietzsche became one stigmatized by the spirit; like Saul he hac to experience Christification, when the “other” whispered th( “Ecce Homo” in his ear. Which of them “brake down befon the cross”-Wagner or Nietzsche?

在我们身上，所有那些不重要，微不足道与懦弱的东西，都从这个接受里，畏惧而退缩。这样做的藉口非常充分：我们发现，我们身上的“另外一个力量”确实是“另外一个”，一位真实的人。这位真实的人思想，行为，感觉，与欲望那些卑下而可恶的一切东西。在这个战争里，我们捉住这个欺骗者，然后跟他宣战，到令我们心满意足。因此，那些惯性的怪癖，道德的历史曾经保留有关它们的一些精辟的，例子。一个特别显目的例子是，那个已经被引述的“尼采反对华格纳，反对圣保罗”，等等。但是，每天的生活充满了这些情况。凭借这个灵巧的设计，人可以拯救他自己，避免浮士德的灾难。在这个灾难面前，他很有可能丧失勇气。可是，一位完整的人知道他最痛苦的敌人，或确实一群的敌人，都无法比得上那个最糟糕的敌人，那个“另外一个我自己”，他驻居在他的内心里。尼采拥有华格纳在他自身之内。那就是为什么他妒忌他，这位“帕西法尔”。但是，更加糟糕地，他作为索罗，在他身上拥有保罗。因此，尼采成为一位被精神污名化的人。就像索罗一样，他必须经验成为基督教徒。当“另外一个我的力量”则是在他的耳边小声说：「瞧！这个人！」。他们哪一位在十字架前崩溃？华格纳？还是尼采？

44 Fate willed it that one of Freud’s earliest disciples, Alfrec
Adler, should formulate a view of neurosis2 based exclusively on the power principle. It is of no little interest, indeed singularl) fascinating, to see how utterly different the same things 1001 when viewed in a contrary light. To take the main contrast first: with Freud everything follows from antecedent circumstance1 according to a rigorous causality, with Adler everything is a teleological “arrangement.” Here is a simple example: A young woman begins to have attacks of anxiety. At night she wakes uF from a nightmare with a blood-curdling cry, is scarcely able tc calm herself, clings to her husband and implores him not tc leave her, demanding assurance that he really loves her, etc. Gradually a nervous asthma develops, the attacks also coming on during the day.

命运这样表达意志：弗洛依德的最早期的一位学生，阿德勒竟然阐述一个对于神经症的观点，专注地以权力的原则作为基础。这是相当引人興趣，确实独异地令人著迷。当我们看见，相同的这些事情如何完全地不同，当从相反的观点来看待它们。首先，让我们观看这个主要的对照：对于弗洛伊德，每样东西都从先前的情况推论而来，依照严格的因果律。对于阿德勒，每样东西都是目的论的“安排“。在此是一个简单的例子。一位年轻的女士开始遭受焦虑的侵袭。在晚上，她从恶梦中清醒过来，带着恐惧的哭喊，她几乎无法让自己安静下来。她紧捉住他的丈夫，并且恳请他不要离开她。她要求保证，他确实爱他，等等。逐渐地，一个神经症的哮喘显示出来。这种恐惧的侵袭也发生在白天。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 45

From an other to the Other 45
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

8.1.69 VI 13
It is the point that, as imaginary support, corresponds to the
desire of the Other, what I have always written under the form of $￡o,
namely, the phantasy, that there lies hidden this function of the “I”.

作为想像的支持，这个点对应于大他者的欲望。我总是书写，用SO的形式。换句话说，幻见的公式。这个“我”的功能就隐藏在那儿。

The “I” in so far as, contrary to the point of convergence called desire
of the Other, it is in a diverging fashion that this “I” hidden under, the
$$ o, is directed under the form that precisely I called at the beginning
that of a true questioning, of a radical questioning, towards the two
points where there lie the elements of the answer. Namely, in the line
on top, big S, which means a signifier, a signifier of the fact that O is
barred, and which is precisely what I took, what I also gave you the
trouble to ha ve a support to conceive of what I am here stating.

跟所谓的大他者的欲望的汇集相反，这个“我”，因为是用分叉的方式，这个隐藏在SO底下的“我”，被引导在这个形式之下，开始时，我确实称它为真实质疑的公式，强烈质疑的公式，朝向这两点，回答的元素就隐藏在那里。换句话说，在上面的这个线条，大写的S，它意味着能指，大他者O被划杠的能指。那确实是我採用的东西，我也给予你们这个麻烦，要拥有一个支持来构想我在此正在陈述的。

Namely, that the field of the Other does not secure, does not assure at
any place, , to any degree, the consistency of the discourse that is
articulated here, in any case, even the most apparently certain.
And on the other hand, the lower line, a meaning in so far as it is
fundamentally alienated. And it is here that you must grasp the sense
of my starting this year with the definition of the surplus enjoying and
its relationship with everything that one can call, in the most radical
sense, the means of production, at the level of meaning, if already the
pot, as I have pointed out to you, is only an apparatus to mask the
consequences of discourse, I mean the major consequences, namely,
the exclusion of enjoyment.

换句话说，大他者的领域并没有获得辞说的一致性，根本没有在任何地方保证任何程度的一致性，对于在此被表达的辞说。无论如何，即使是最明显的确定。在另一方面，这个下面的线条，是一个意义，因为它基本上是异化的。就在这里，你们必须理解这个意义，我今年陈述，用“剩余享乐”的定义。用“剩余享乐”，及其跟我们能够所谓的生产的工具的关系，用最强烈的意义来说，处于意义的层次。如同我已经跟你们指出的，假如这个壶仅是一个工具用来遮蔽辞说的结果。我指的是主要的结果。也就是，享乐的排除。

You see that in this way there is put into this Entzweiung, the term is
Hegelian, into this radical division which is the very one at which
Freud’s discourse culminates at the end of his life, the division of the
“I” articulated as such. It is nothing less than that between these two
terms, namely, the field where the Other in a way, in some imagining,
for a long time that of the philosophers, could correspond to any truth
and where precisely this is cancelled out by the simple examination of
the functions of language. I mean that we know how to make
intervene in it the function of the cut that answers “no!”, no to the God
of the philosophers.

你们看见，用这个方式，这个分裂“Entzweiung”被放进这个区分，这是黑格尔的术语，被放进这个强烈的区分。在这个区分，弗洛依德的辞说达到高潮，在他生命的结束。这个被表达作为“区分”的“我”的区分。这实实在在是处于这两个术语的区分，换句话说，在某些的想像里，长久以来，就是哲学家的想像里，大他者能够以某种的方式对应于任何真理的领域。在那里，这个区分被取消，被语言的功能的简单的检查。我指的是，我们知道如何介入这个切割的功能。这个切割回答“不”，对于哲学家的上帝说“不”。

And that, on the other hand, on a different
register, the one in appearance where enjoyment is waiting. It is there
precisely that it is a slave, and in the same way people said that up to
now that one could reproach psychoanalysis for overlooking the
conditions in which man is subjected to the social, as it is put, without
seeing that one is contradicting oneself. The materialism described as
historical only has a sense precisely by grasping that it does not depend
on the social structure since it affirms itself that it is on the means of
production. Namely, only from that with which one makes things that
deceive surplus enjoying. Namely, that, far from being able to hope to
fill the field of enjoyment, are not even sufficient for what is lost in it,
because of the Other.

在另一方面，在不同的铭记，外表上的铭记，享乐正在那里等待着。确实就是在那里，它是一位奴隶。同样地，人们说，直到现在，我们能够谴责精神分析，因为忽略这些情况，在那里，人们隶属于所谓的社会，而没有看见，我们正在跟自己相牴触。被描述为历史的唯物论，仅是具有意义，确实凭借理解，它并没有依靠社会的结构，因为它肯定它自己，它依靠生产的工具。换句话说，仅是从外面用了制作欺骗“剩余享乐”的东西的工具。换句话说，这些东西根本就不能够希望填满享乐的领域，它们甚至不足够填满里面失落的东西，因为大他者。

I was not able, my God, as usual, to go any quicker than my own
violins. Nevertheless, I can announce here where I intend to take
things up the next time. I will tell you that it is not in vain that from
(81) the mouth of the God of the Jews, what I held onto is “I am what I
is”. It is indeed here that it is time for something to be finally
dissipated, something already clearly said by someone called Pascal. If
you wish, perhaps this will help you to understand what I am going to
tell you the next time, to read a little book that has appeared in Desctee
de Brouwer under the title of Pascal’s wager by a M Georges Brunet,
who knows admirably well what he is saying.

我的天，通常，我并不能够进行得比起我的小提琴还要快。可是，我能够在此宣佈，我下次打算要探讨事情的地方。我将告诉你们，这并非白费力气，从犹太人的上帝的嘴巴里，我所坚持的东西是：“我的生命实存在于我作为他者的生命实存”确实就是在这里，某件东西最后应该被驱散的时刻。某件东西已经清楚地由巴斯卡说出。你们若愿意，这或许将会帮助你们理解我下次将要告诉你们的东西。用“巴斯卡的赌注”的标题，乔治 布伦尼写的。他清楚明白他正在说什么。

As you have seen earlier
this is not true for every professor! But he for his part knows. What
he says, moreover, does not go very far, but at least he knows what he
is saying. On the other hand, it is a disentangling that is indispensable
for you about what is involved in this little sheet of paper folded in
four, that, as I already said, I already spoke about this, was found in
Pascal’s pockets, the dead Pascal. I speak a lot about the dead God, it
is probably to deliver us from many other relationships with others that
I evoked earlier, my relationships with the dead Freud; that has a
completely different sense.

如同你们早先已经看见，这个标题并非对于每位教授都是真实！但是，就他而言，他知道。而且，他所说的东西并没有很离谱，但是至少，他知道他正在说什么。另一方面，对于你们不可免除的瓦解，关于这张小纸张所牵涉的东西。被折叠四次的纸张。我已经说过，我已经谈论关于这个，在巴斯卡的口袋被找到这张纸，这位死去的巴斯卡。我经常谈谈关于死去的上帝。那或许是为了解放我们，脱离跟别人的许多其他的关系，我早先召唤的别人。我跟死去的弗洛依德的关系，那拥有完全不同的意义。
But if you would not mind reading this Pascal’s wager by Georges
Brunet, at least you will know what I am talking about, when I speak
about this text, which is scarcely a quarto, as you know. It is a writing
that overlaps, that becomes entangled, that criss-crosses, that is
annotated. It was a text for the pleasure, of course, of professors. This
pleasure is brief, because they were never able to get absolutely
anything from it.

但是，假如你们不介意，阅读乔治 布伦尼写的“巴斯卡的赌注”，至少你们将会知道我正在谈论什么。当我谈论这个文本，那几乎不到四开本。你们知道。它是重叠的书写，变成纠缠，互相交叉，被注释。当然，这是一个适合于教授们享乐的文本。这种享乐是简短的，因为他们从来不能够从它那里获得任何东西。

There is something that is, on the contrary, quite clear, and it is with
this that I will begin the next time. That strictly nothing else is at stake
except precisely the “I”. People spend their time asking whether God
exists as if it were even a question. God is, there is absolutely no kind
of doubt about that, that absolutely does not prove that he exists. The
question does not arise. But it is necessary to know if “I” exists.
I think I will be able to make you sense that it is around this
uncertainty, does “I” exist, that Pascal’s wager is played out.

相反地，有某件东西相当清楚。我下次就是要用这个文本开始。那确实没有别的东西岌岌可危，除了确实就是这个“我”。人们花费他们的时间询问上帝是否存在，好似那甚至是一个问题。上帝存在，关于那点，绝对无可置疑。那绝对没有证明，上帝存在。这个问题并没有产生。但是有必要知道，“我”是否存在。我认为我将能够让你们理解，就是环绕这个不确定，这个“我” 存在。巴斯卡的赌注被赌光了。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Analytical Psychology 2

Analytical Psychology 2
分析心理学
Karl Jung
卡尔 荣格
III
THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW:
THE WILL TO POWER

另外一个观点：
权力意志

38 But what was it that he lived, if not the life of instinct? Can
Nietzsche really be accused of having denied his instincts in practice? He would scarcely have agreed to that. He could even show without much difficulty that he lived his instinctual life in the highest sense. But how is it possible, we may ask in astonish¬ment, for man’s instinctual nature to drive him into separation from his kind, into absolute isolation from humanity, into an aloofness from the herd upheld by loathing? We think of in¬stinct as uniting man, causing him to mate, to beget, to seek pleasure and good living, the satisfaction of all sensuous desires. We forget that this is only one of the possible directions of in¬stinct. There exists not only the instinct for the preservation of the species, but also the instinct of self -preservation.

但是，他所过的生活，难道不就是本能的生活？尼采确实能够被控诉他曾经否认他在实践时的本能吗? 他本来不会同意那种说法。他甚至能够没有多大困难地显示，他过著最崇高意义的本能的生活。但是，这如何可能呢？我们可能惊奇地询问，为了让人的本能的天性驱使他跟他的同胞分离，进入脱离人类的绝对的孤立，进入跟疏离状态，跟厌恶所支持的俗众的疏离？我们将本能视为是团结人的东西，引起人交配，生殖，寻求快乐与美好的生活，以及各种感官的欲望的满足。我们忘记，这是本能的各种可能的方向的其中一种。不但还存在着为了保存种族的本能，而且还有保存自性的本能。

39 It is of this last instinct, the will to power) that Nietzsche obviously speaks. Whatever else is instinctual only follows, for him, in the train of the will to power. From the standpoint of Freud’s sexual psychology, this is an error of the most glaring kind, a misconception of biology, the bungling of a decadent neu¬rotic. For it is a very simple matter for any adherent of sexual psychology to prove that everything lofty and heroic in N ie¬tzsche’s view of life and the world is nothing but a consequence of the repression and misunderstanding of that other instinct which this psychology regards as fundamental.

尼采显而易见地谈论到的这个最后的本能，权力意志。任何其他属于本能的东西都仅是跟随而来。对于尼采，在权力意志的系列里。从弗洛依德的性的心理学的观点，有一个最恶名昭著的错误，生物学的错误观念，颓废的神经者的吹号。因为这是非常简单的事情，让性的心理学的主张者证明，在尼采的生命与世界的观点里，每一样崇高而英雄式的东西，都仅是其他本能的压抑与误解的结果，这个性的心理学将它视为是基本的本能。

40 The case of N ietzsche shows, on the one hand, the conse-
quences of neurotic one-sidedness, and, on the other hand, the dangers that lurk in this leap beyond Christianity. Nietzsche un¬doubtedly felt the Christian denial of animal nature very deeply indeed, and therefore he sought a higher human wholeness be¬yond good and evil. But he who seriously criticizes the basic atti¬tudes of Christianity also forfeits the protection which these be¬stow upon him. He delivers himself up unresistingly to the animal psyche. That is the moment of Dionysian frenzy, the overwhelming manifestation of the “blond beast,” 1 which seizes the unsuspecting soul with nameless shudderings. The seizure transforms him into a hero or into a godlike being, a super-

1 [Cf. Jung, “The Role of the Unconscious,” par. 17.-EDlTORS.] 32

THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW: THE WILL TO POWER
human entity. He rightly feels himself “six thousand feet be¬yond good and evil.”

一方面，尼采的个案显示神经症者的单边性的结果。另一方面，显示这个危险，潜伏在超越基督教的这个跳跃的危险。尼采无可置疑地感受到基督教深刻地否认动物的天性。因此，他寻找一个较高的人类的完整性，超越善与恶。但是，严肃批判基督教的基本态度的人，也会丧失这个保护，基督教的基本态度赐予他的这个保护。他没有抗拒地解放他自己，给予动物的心灵。那就是戴奥尼修斯狂乱的时刻，“金发野兽：的压倒性的展示。这种狂乱的展示让没有怀疑的灵魂被捉住，被无名的颤栗。这种捉住将他转化成为一位英雄，或是转化成为像神一样的人，一位超级人类的实体。他恰如其份地感受他自己，距离善与恶六千英尺。

41 The psychological observer knows this state as “identifica-
tion with the shadow,” a phenomenon which occurs with great regularity at such moments of collision with the unconscious. The only thing that helps here is cautious self-criticism. Firstly and before all else, it is exceedingly unlikely that one has just discovered a world-shattering truth, for such things happen ex¬tremely seldom in the world’s history.

心理学的观察者知道这个状态，作为是‘认同于阴影“。这一个现象经常规律地发生，在跟无意识冲突的这些时刻。在此唯一有帮助的事情，就是谨慎地批判自己。首先，尤其重要地，这个过度的不可能，我们刚刚发现一个毁灭世界的真理。因为在人类历史上，这些事情的发生极端罕见。

Secondly, one must care¬fully inquire whether something similar might not have hap¬pened elsewhere-for instance N ietzsche, as a philologist, could have adduced a few obvious classical parallels which would cer¬tainly have calmed his mind. Thirdly, one must reflect that a Di¬onysian experience may well be nothing more than a relapse into a pagan form of religion, so that in reality nothing new is discov¬ered !,md the same story only repeats itself from the beginning. Fourthly, one cannot avoid foreseeing that this joyful intensifi¬cation of mood to heroic and godlike heights is dead certain to be followed by an equally deep plunge into the abyss.

其次，我们必须小心地研究，某件类似的事情是否可能曾经发生在别的地方。譬如，尼采，作为一位语言学家，他本来能够举出一些明显的古典的案例。那些案例本来会让他的心情安宁一些。第三，我们必须反思，一个戴奥尼修斯的经验很有可能仅仅是重新发作成为一位宗教的异教徒形式。这样，在现实里，没有一样新的东西被发现！相同的故事仅是重复它自己，从一开始。第四，我们无法避免预先看见，到达英雄式与像神一般的高度的这个快乐的心情的张力，确定后面跟随着同样深深地投掷进入深渊。

These considerations would put one in a position of advantage: the whole extravaganza could then be reduced to the proportions of a somewhat exhausting mountaineering expedition, to which succeed the eternal commonplaces of day. Just as every stream seeks the valley and the broad river that hastens towards the flat¬lands, so life not only flows along in commonplaces, but makes everything else commonplace. The uncommon, if it is not to end in catastrophe, may steal in alongside the commonplace, but not often. If heroism becomes chronic, it ends in a cramp, and the cramp leads to catastrophe or to neurosis or both. N ie¬tzsche got stuck in a state of high tension.

这些考虑将会让一个人处于有利的立场，整个的豪华演出因此将会被化简成为让人精疲力尽的爬山之旅的程度。每日的永恒的平凡接踵而来。正如每个溪流寻找山谷与匆促朝向平原的宽阔的河流，生命不但流动，沿着寻常的地方，而且让每样其他的东西成为寻常。这个不寻常，假如不想要在灾难里结束，可能会沿着这寻常地方偷溜进来。但是并不是经常。假如英雄主义变成惯性，它会以痉挛作为结束。但是这种痉挛导致灾难，活导致神经症，或导致两者。尼采卡陷在高度的张力的状态。

But with this ecstasy he could just as well have borne up under Christianity. Not that this answers the question of the animal psyche in the least-for an ecstatic animal is a monstrosity. An animal fulfils the law of its own life, neither more nor less. We can call it obedient and “good.” But the ecstatic by-passes the law of his own life and behaves, from the point of view of nature, improperly. This im¬propriety is the exclusive prerogative of man, whose conscious¬ness and free will can occasionally loose themselves contra na¬turam from their roots in animal nature. It is the indispensable
33

ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS

foundation of all culture, but also of spiritual sickness if exag¬gerated. Man can suffer only a certain amount of culture with¬out injury. The endless dilemma of culture and nature is always a question of too much or too little, never of either-or.

但是，带着这个狂喜，他当时很有可能在基督教之下勇敢站立。倒不是因为这根本回答动物心灵的这个问题—因为狂喜的动物是个怪诞之物。动物满足它自己的生命的法则，不多也不少。我们能够称它为服从与“良好”。但是狂喜绕过他自己的生命的法则，从自然的观点，狂喜的行为是不恰当的。这个不恰当就是人的专有的特权。人的意识与自由意志有时将会违背自然地放松他自己，离开他们在动物天性的根源。这是所有的文化的不可免除的基础，而且也是精神的疾病，假如它被夸张的话。人仅能够遭受某些数量的文化的痛苦，而没有受到伤害。文化与自然的永恒的困境总是一个不是太多或是太少的问题，从来就不是非此则彼的问题。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 44

From an other to the Other 44
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Well then, I think that here indeed Von Neuman is going a little too
far. Namely., I believe that the term residue is wrong, and that what is
revealed here about this function that already I have evoked from
several angles under the title of the impossible has a different structure
than the one that we have to deal with in the fall of what I call the oobject.

呵呵，我认为，在此确实是范 纽曼将会稍微扯太远。换句话说，我相信，“残渣”这个术语是错误的。在此被揭露的东西，关于我已经从好几个角度召唤的东西的这个功能，在“不可能”的这个标题之下。关于这个功能在此被揭露的东西，具有不同的结构，不同于我必须处理的这个结构，在我所谓的“小客体”的东西的掉落里。

Much more, I believe that what is revealed here in terms of
lack, even though no less structural, reveals no doubt the presence of
the subject, but no other subject than the one that brought about the
cut, the one that separated out the so-called meta-language from a
certain mathematical field, namely, quite simply its discourse, the cut
that separates this language from another isolated language, from an
artificial language, from formal language.

而且，我相信，在此被揭露的东西，用欠缺这个术语。即使它同样都是具有结构，它无可置疑地显露主体的存在。但是没有其他的主体，除了就是导致这个切割的这个主体，分开所谓的后设语言跟某个数学领域的这个主体。换句话说，就是主体的辞说，分开这个语言跟另外一个孤立的语言的这个切割，跟人为的语言，跟正式的语言不同的切割。

That is why this operation,
the cut, is no less fruitful in so far as it reveals properties that are
indeed the very stuff of the mathematical discourse, in that whether it
is a question of whole numbers on the status of which you know
people have not finished and that people will scarcely finish cavilling
about for some time as to whether these numbers have such a place
ontologically or not is a question that is totally foreign to the
experience of discourse in so far as it operates with them and that can
perform this double operation, 1) construct itself and 2) formalise
itself.

那就是为什么这个运作，这个切割，同样是有成果的，因为它显示确实是数学辞说的材料的特质。因为无论那是完整数字的问题，你们知道，人们并没有完成完整数字的地位，有段时间，人们几乎没有完成挑剔完整数字的地位，关于这些数字是否拥有本体论这样的地位，是一个完全是辞说的经验感到陌生的问题。因为它跟它们运作，并且执行这个双重的运作。一个运作是建构它自己，另一个运作是让它自己成为正式。
/
We are far, no doubt, at first sight, from what interests us at the centre,
and I do not know, given the little time that remains to me, how I can
bring you back to it today. Nevertheless, allow me to recall rapidly, to
sketch out here that the point that we had got to at the end of our last
session was the following: the truth speaks “I”. What about this “I”?

无可置疑，乍然一看，我们根本就不是在中心我们感到興趣的东西。我并不知道，假如考虑到我剩余的这一点时间。我今天如何能够带你们回到它？可是，请你们容许我快速地提醒，在此描述，我们在上次的那节课的结束所到达的东西，就是以下：真理言说“我“。这个“我”是啥东西？

If the “I” is here to be strictly distinguished from the subject that as
you see one can somewhere can be reduced to the function of the cut,
impossible to distinguish from the one called unary trait in so far as it
isolates a function of the One as simply unique, and simply a cut in
numeration.

假如这个“我”在此应该严格地被区别，跟主体区别。你们看见，我们能够区别，这个主体能够被化简成为切割的这个功能。它不可能跟这个被称为特异性的特征的这个主体区别。因为它孤立出这个“一”的功能，作为是独一无二。就是数字的一个切割。

The “I” is not for all that in any way assured, because we
can say the following about it. That it is and that it is not according to
whether, as subject, it operates, and that operating as subject, it is
exiled from the enjoyment which for all that is no less “I”.

尽管那样，这个“我”根本就不确定。因为我们能够说以下的话对于它。它就是那个样子，它的存在并不是依照它是否作为主体在运作。当它作为主体在运作时，它被放逐离开这个享乐。尽管这样，这个享乐同样是“我”。
8.1.69 VI 12

And it is here that I must remind you that in this graph (fig 6),
constructed to respond very precisely to the constitutive questioning of
analysis, what lies between the two lines called stating and stated,
namely that, cut again by that of signifying material, by the elementary
differential chain of phonemes, it allowed us to guarantee these four
(79) crossing points whose status is given precisely in terms of writing.

就在这里，我必须提醒你们，在这个图形（图形6），它被建构，为了确实回应精神分析的本体结构的质疑。处于这两行之间的东西，被称为是陈述与被陈述者的两行。换句话说，它再次被切割，被成为能指的材料的东西，被这个基本的差异的音素的差异的锁链。它让我们能够保证这四个跨越的点。这四个跨越的点的地位被给予，确实是用书写的术语。

Here the $0D, here the O, the field of the Other, here the small s of O,
namely meaning, and here finally the big S of 0 , the signifier of
something approached several times, but never completely elucidated
called the O barred.

在此是这个公式$D，这是大他者的领域，在此是O的这个小的s，也就是意义。在此是O的这个大写的S，好几次被接近的某件东西的能指。但是从来没有完整地被阐述，被称为是被划杠的这个O。

You know that here, homologous to the imaginary
return line that integrates the narcissistic relation into the field of the
statement, homologous, I am saying, you have here, halfway
incarnated in this written form what is necessary at the pure
enunciating level which is the following, namely, what is articulated as
$OD, which means here as elsewhere, everywhere I write it, demand.

你们知道，在此，跟想像的回归线条同质性，这个回归线条合并自恋的关系，进入陈述的领域，我不妨说是同质性，你们在此拥有的，用这个书写的形式，半途被具体表现所必需的东西，在这个纯粹的表述的层次，以下的层次。也就是说，所被表达的东西，作是$D的公式。这个公式在这里，如同在其他地方，每个地方，意味着“要求”。

Demand, not an indifferent one, “I ask myself’. And let us write here
in this form, “what you want”, the desire of the Other, in this complete
ambiguity that still allows there to be written “I ask you.. .what I
want”, since my desire is the desire of the Other.

“要求”，并不是冷漠的要求，“我要求我自己”。请让我在此用这个形式写下，“你想要的东西”，大他者的欲望，在这个完整的模糊暧昧里，它在那里容许被书写为“我要求你、、我想要的东西”，因为我的欲望就是大他者的欲望。

There is no distinction here, except one induced by the very function of stating in
so far as it bears in itself its sense as first of all obscure, as if all
stating, as I already said, the most simple, only evokes its sense as a
consequence of its own emergence. “It is raining” is a discourse-event
and it is only secondary to know what it means about rain. Anyone at
all is capable of evoking “It is raining” in a particular context. It can
have very different senses. Do I need in this connection to recall that
“Get out” does not sound the same everywhere as it does in Bajazet.

在此，没有任何区别，除了被陈述的这个功能引出的区别。因为它在它自身具有它的意义，作是起初是模糊，好像所有的陈述，我已经说过，最简单的陈述，仅是召唤它的意义，作为是它自己的出现代结果。“天正在下雨”是一个辞说-事件。知道关于下雨是什么意思则是次要。任何人都能够召唤“天正在下雨”，在特殊的文本里。它能够具有非常不同的意义。关于这一点，我有这个需要提醒吗？“出去”听起来并不是每个地方都相同，如同在歌剧“Bajazet”那里。

If there is something that is more important to map out from this graph
than this discourse that accompanies it, it is the structural vectors as
they are presented here at the level where the You, as dominating the I,
as the you-ing (tu-ant) as I said at the level of the desire of the Other,
the vectors that converge. It is around the desire of the Other that the
demand of the discourse, of the discourse as we organise it in analytic
experience, of the discourse precisely that, under its aspect that
fallaciously pretends to be neutral, leaves open the sharpest accent of
the demand at its point. It is in a converging fashion around the desire
of the Other that everything that is at the source, as the retroactive
arrow indicated, everything that is at the source converges towards the
desire of the Other.

假如从这个图形，有某件更加重要的东西能够被描绘，除了伴随它的这个辞说。那就是结构的向量，因为它们被在此被呈现，处于这个层次。在这里，这个“你“，作为支使这个”我“，作为这个”你”的进行动作。如我所说，在大他者的欲望的层次，汇集的这些向量。就是环绕大他者的欲望，辞说的这个要求，依照我们组织它的辞说的要求，在精神分析经验里，辞说的要求，在它错误地假装是中立的面向，这条辞说将在它的时刻的要求的最敏锐的强调展开。就是用一个汇集到方式，环绕大他者的欲望，每一样属于资源的东西，作为是被指示的反弹动作的箭头，，每一样属于资源的东西，汇集朝向大他者的欲望。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Analytical Psychology

Analytical Psychology
分析心理学
Karl Jung
卡尔 荣格
III
THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW:
THE WILL TO POWER

另外一个观点：
权力意志

35 So far we have considered the problem of this new psychology essentially from the Freudian point of view. Undoubtedly it has shown us a very real truth to which our pride, our civilized con¬sciousness, may say no, though something else in us says yes. Many people find this fact extremely irritating; it arouses their hostility or even their fear, and consequently they are unwilling to recognize the conflict.

迄今，我们考虑过新的心理学的这个难题，基本上从弗洛依德的观点。无可置疑地，它跟我们显示一个非常真实的真理。对于这个真理，我们的尊严，我们的文明的意识可能会否认，虽然我们身上的某件其他东西会承认。许多人们发现这个事实极端令人愤怒。它引起他们的敌意或甚至他们的恐惧。结果，他们不愿意承认这个冲突。

And indeed it is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow-side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses and foibles, but of a positively demonic dyna¬mism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circum¬stances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature.

的确，这是一个令人害怕的想法，人也拥有属于他的阴影面向，主要的组成不仅是小小弱点或缺点。而是属于强烈的恶魔的动力结构。个人很少会知道任何有关这件事。作为一位个人，匪夷所思地，他竟然会有情况超越自己的控制。但是假如让这些无害的动物成群结队，就会出现暴虐的怪物。每个个人在怪物的身体里，仅是一个小小的细胞。无论好坏，他必须伴随它，依靠它的流血的暴力行为。甚至帮助它充分发挥。因为人对于这些冷酷的可能性拥有黑暗的怀疑，他对于人类天性的阴影的一面视而不见。

Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware. It can read¬ily be understood that a school of psychology-even if it be biased and exaggerated in this or that respect-which insists on the seamy side, is unwelcome, not to say frightening, because it forces us to gaze into the bottomless abyss of this problem.

盲目地，他奋斗对抗原罪的这个令人敬畏的教条。可是这个教条又是千真万确地真实。是对，他甚至犹豫地承认，原罪教条的冲突，他如此痛苦地知道。我们就迅速地理解到，一个心理学的学派，即使它在某个方面具有偏见与夸张，它坚持这个污秽的一面。这种心理学派是不受欢迎，估且不说令人害怕。因为它强迫我们正视这个难题的无底的深渊。

A dim premonition tells us that we cannot be whole without this negative side, that we have a body which, like all bodies, casts a shadow, and that if we deny this body we cease to be three¬dimensional and become flat and without substance. Yet this body is a beast with a beast’s soul, an organism that gives un¬questioning obedience to instinct. To unite oneself with this
3°

THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW: THE WILL TO POWER
shadow is to say yes to instinct, to that formidable dynamism lurking in the background. From this the ascetic morality of Christianity wishes to free us, but at the risk of disorganizing man’s animal nature at the deepest level.

一个模糊的预警告诉我们，假如没有这个负面的面向，我们无法成为整体。我们拥有一个身体，就向所有的身体一样，我们的身体投射一个阴影。假如我们否认这个身体，我们就不再是三个维度，而变成平坦，没有物质。可是，这个身体是一个野兽，具有野兽的灵魂，一个有机体，给予毫无质疑的服从本能。为了统合自己，跟这个阴影，那就是要承认这个本能，承认那个巨大的动力结构潜伏在背景。从这个地方，基督教的禁欲的道德希望解放我们，但是冒的危险是：瓦解在最深层们的人的动物的天性。

36 Has anyone made clear to himself what that means-a yea-
saying to instinct? That was what N ietzsche desired and taught, and he was in deadly earnest. With a rare passion he sacrificed himself, his whole life, to the idea of the Superman-to the idea of the man who through obedience to instinct transcends him¬self. And what was the course of that life? It was as N ietzsche himself prophesied in Zarathustra) in that foreboding vision of the fatal fall of the rope-dancer, the man who would not be “sur¬passed.” To the dying rope-dancer Zarathustra says: “Thy soul will sooner be dead than thy body!” and later the dwarf says to Zarathustra, “0 Zarathustra, stone of wisdom! High thou fling¬est thyself, but every stone that is flung must fall! Condemned to thyself and to thine own stoning: 0 Zarathustra, far indeed thou flingest the stone-but upon thyself will it fall.” And when he cried his “Ecce Homo” over himself, again it was too late, as once before when this saying was uttered, and the crucifixion of the soul began before the body was dead.

是否曾经有人跟他自己表达清楚，承认本能存在意味着什么？那就是尼采欲望与教导的东西。尼采真诚得彻底。带着罕见的激情，他牺性他自己，他的整个的一生，奉献给超人的这个观念，奉献给人的这个观念：凭借服从于本能，人超越他自己。那个生命的途径是什么？如同尼采自己预言，在“扎拉特拉图斯如是说”。在那个空中走绳舞者的致命的掉落的恶兆预警里，他是不想要被“超越”的这个人。对于这位垂死的空中走绳舞者，扎拉特拉图斯说：「你的灵魂将会比你的身体还有快死掉！」后来，这位侏儒对扎拉特拉图斯说，「奥，扎拉特拉图斯，这位智慧之石，你将自己投掷向高空，但是每块被投掷的石头，都必然会掉落！因为它注定要成为自己，注定成为它自己的投掷：奥，扎拉特拉图斯，你确实将石头投掷很远，但是，石头将会掉落到你自己身上！」当他对着他自己，喊出“瞧！这个人！”时，再一次，为时已晚。如同先前一样，这个话语被表达出来。灵活被钉上十字架，早先开始于身体死亡之前。

37 We must look very critically at the life of one who taught
such a yea-saying, in order to examine the effects of this teaching on the teacher’s own life. When we scrutinize his life with this aim in view we are bound to admit that Nietzsche lived beyond instinct, in the lofty heights of heroic sublimity-heights that he could maintain only with the help of the most meticulous diet, a carefully selected climate, and many aids to sleep-until the ten¬sion shattered his brain. He talked of yea-saying and lived the nay. His loathing for man, for the human animal that lived by instinct, was too great. Despite everything, he could not swallow the toad he so often dreamed of and which he feared had to be swallowed. The roaring of the Zarathustrian lion drove back into the cavern of the unconscious all the “higher” men who were clamouring to live. Hence his life does not convince us of hi.s teaching. For the “higher” man wants to be able to sleep wIthout chloral, to live in Naumburg and Basel despite “fogs and shadows.” He desires wife and offspring, standing and es¬teem among the herd, innumerable commonplace realities, and not least those of the Philistine. Nietzsche failed to live this in-
31

ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
stinct, the animal urge to life. For all his greatness and impor¬tance, Nietzsche’s was a pathological personality.

我们必须批判地观看这个人的一生，他教导对于生命的肯定，为了检查这个教导对于老师自己的生命的影响。当我们审查他的一生，以这个目标作为观点。我们必然要承认，尼采生活超越本能，在崇高的高处，具有英雄式的崇高的高处。这样，他才能够维持，仅是凭借饮食极度讲究的帮助，仔细挑选的气候，还有很多的睡眠的辅助。直到这样的紧张让他的脑神经崩溃。他谈论到肯定生命，但是生活却否定生命。他对于人的厌恶，对于人类作为动物依靠本能而生活的厌恶。这个厌恶太过强烈。尽管一切，他无法吞下这只蛤蟆，他经常梦见自己成为蛤蟆，他害怕这只蛤蟆必须被吞下。扎拉特拉图斯的狮子的漫遊，将所有的“较高”的人们都驱赶回到无意识的洞穴。这些“较高”的人们努力要生活。因此，他的生命并没有说服我们相信他的教导。因为这位“较高的人”想要能够睡觉，不靠安眠药，想要生活于纽伦堡与巴塞尔，尽管“迷雾与阴影”。他欲望妻子与后代，在俗众里独立与享有尊敬，那是无数的共同的现实。特别是那些市俗的那些人物。尼采没有办法过这样的本能的生活，对于生命的动物的渴望。尽管他的伟大与重要，尼采的人格是病态的。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY 18

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY 18
论心灵能源
Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格
22. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE ENERGIC POINT OF VIEW IN PSYCHOLOGY
心理学的能源观点的通论
f. Introduction
导论

b. The Conservation of Energy
34 If we undertake to view the psychic life-process from the
energic standpoint, we must not rest content with the mere concept, but must accept the obligation to test its applicability to empirical material. An energic standpoint is otiose if its main principle, the conservation of energy, proves to be inap¬plicable. Here we must follow Busse’s suggestion and distinguish between the principle of equivalence and the principle of con-stancy.33 The principle of equivalence states that “for a given quantity of energy expended or consumed in bringing about a certain condition, an equal quantity of the same or another form of energy will appear elsewhere”; while the principle of constancy states that “the sum total of energy remains constant, and is susceptible neither of increase nor of decrease.” Hence the principle of constancy is a logically necessary but generalized conclusion from the principle of equivalence and is not so im-portant in practice, since our experience is always concerned with partial systems only.

假如我们从事看待心灵的生命的过程，从能源的观点。我们一定不要满足于仅是这个观念。而是必须接受这个义务，测试它的可运用性，到经验的材料。一个能源的观点是无用的，假如它始终是原则，能源的保存证明书无法被运用。在此，我们必须遵循巴塞的建议，并且区别相等的原则与常态的原则。相等的原则陈述，“对于特定的数量的能源，无论是被消耗，或被消费，当它导致某个情况，相同或另外能源的形式的相等的数量，将会在别的地方出现。而常态的原则陈述：”能源的总是始终是常态，既不受到增加，也不受到减少的影响。“因此，常态的原则在逻辑上是必要的，但是从相等的原则的通俗化的结论，在实践时，它并不那么重要。因为我们的经验总是关注于仅是部分的系统。

35 For our purpose, the principle of equivalence is the only one
of immediate concern. In my book Symbols of Transforma¬tion,34 I have demonstrated the possibility of considering certain developmental processes and other transformations of the kind under the principle of equivalence. I will not repeat in extenso what I have said there, but will only emphasize once again that Freud’s investigation of sexuality has made many valuable con¬tributions to our problem.

作为我们的目的，相等的原则是当下关注的唯一原则。在我的书“转化的象征“，我曾经证明这个可能性，考虑某些的发展的过程与那种发展过程的其他的转化，在相等的原则之下。我将不详细地重复我刚刚说过的东西。但是，我将仅是再次强调，弗洛依德的研究性，对于我们的难题，已经提供许多宝贵的贡献。

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY
Nowhere can we see more clearly than in the relation of sexuality to the total psyche how the disappearance of a given quantum of libido is followed by the appearance of an equivalent value in another form. Unfortu¬nately Freud’s very understandable over-valuation of sexuality led him to reduce transformations of other specific psychic forces co-ordinated with sexuality to sexuality pure and simple, thus bringing upon himself the not unjustified charge of pan¬sexual ism.

在性跟整体的心灵的关系，我们看得最为清楚，力比多的特定的数量的消失如何后面跟随着相等的价值的出现，用另一个形式。不幸地，弗洛依德的可理解的过分评估性，引导他将其他的明确的心灵的力量的转化化减，并且将性跟单纯与简单的性协调一致。因此带给他自己，这个无法自圆其说的“性-泛滥主义“的攻击。
The defect of the Freudian view lies in the one¬sidedness to which the mechanistic-causal standpoint always inclines, that is to say in the all-simplifying reductio ad causam, which, the truer, the simpler, the more inclusive it is, does the less justice to the product thus analysed and reduced. Anyone who reads Freud’s works with attention will see what an im¬portant role the equivalence principle plays in the structure of his theories. This can be seen particularly clearly in his investi¬gations of case material, where he gives an account of repres¬sions and their substitute formations.35

弗洛依德的缺点就在于这个单边性，机械与因果的观点总是倾向的单边性。换句话说，在这个完全简化的“化减与因果“里，它越是更加真实，更加简化，更加包括，它就越是无法充分表现这个产物，因此被分析与化减的产物。任何阅读弗洛依德的著作的人，都会看见，相等原则扮演多么重要的角色，，在他的理论的结构里。在他的研究个案材料里，这个情况特别清楚地被看出。在个案材料里，他给予一个描述，对于压抑与压抑的替换的形式。

Anyone who has had practical experience of this field knows that the equivalence principle is of great heuristic value in the treatment of neuroses. Even if its application is not always conscious, you nevertheless apply it instinctively or by feeling. For instance, when a con¬scious value, say a transference, decreases or actually disappears, you immediately look for the substitute’ formation, expecting to see an equivalent value spring up somewhere else. It is not difficult to find the substitute if the substitute formation is a conscious content, but there are frequent cases where a sum of libido disappears apparently without forming a substitute.

任何对这个领域有实践经验的人都会知道，相等原则具有强大的通则第价值，在治疗神经症。即使对于它的运用未必总是被意识到。你们仍然会本能地或凭借感觉地运用它。譬如，当一个意识的价值，譬如说，移情，减少或实际消失，你们立即寻找替换的形式，期望看见一个相等的价值突然出现在某个地方。我们并不困难发现这个替换，假如这个替换的形式是一个意识的内容。但是有些经常的案例，力比多多数量明显地消失，并没有形成替换。

In that case the substitute is unconscious, or, as usually happens, the patient is unaware that some new psychic fact is the cor¬responding substitute formation. But it may also happen that a considerable sum of libido disappears as though completely swallowed up by the unconscious, with no new value appearing in its stead.

在那个情况，替换的无意识，或如通常发生的事情，病人并不知道，某个新的心灵的事实是对应的替换的形式。但是也可能发生的情况是，相当的力比多的数量消失，好像完全被无意识吞没。并没有新的价值出现来代替它。

In such cases it is advisable to cling firmly to the principle of equivalence, for careful observation of the patient will soon reveal signs of unconscious activity, for instance an intensification of certain symptoms, or a new symptom, or peculiar dreams, or strange, fleeting fragments of fantasy, etc.
在那个情况，最好是坚定地捉住相等性的原则，因为假如你仔细地观察病人，不久你将会发现，无意识活动的迹象。譬如，某些个征状的强化，或特殊的梦，或幻想的奇怪而瞬间消失的碎片，等等。

33 Ibid.

34 Cf. particularly Part 11, ch. Ill. 18

35 Sammlung kleiller Schriften %Ur Neurosenlehre [cf. Collected Papel’s, I-IV1. 19

THE STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHE
If the analyst succeeds in bringing these hidden contents into consciousness, it can usually be shown that the libido which disappeared from consciousness generated a product in the un¬conscious which, despite all differences, has not a few features in common with the conscious contents that lost their energy. It is as if the libido dragged with it into the unconscious certain qualities which are often so distinct that one can recognize from their character the source of the libido now activating the un¬conscIOUS.

假如精神分析家成功地将这些被隐藏的内容带进意识，它通常能够被显示，从意识消失的力比多产生一个产物，在无意识那里。尽管各种的差异，无意识拥有一些跟意识内容共同的特征，丧失它们的能源的意识的内容。好像力比多拖拉著某些的特质跟它进入无意识。这些特质经常是如此清楚，以致我们能够从它们的特质体认出，力比多的来源现在正在触动无意识。

36 There are many striking and well-known examples of these
transformations. For instance, when a child begins to separate himself subjectively from his parents, fantasies of substitute parents arise, and these fantasies are almost always transferred to real people. Transferences of this sort prove untenable in the long run, because the maturing personality must assimilate the parental complex and achieve authority, responsibility, and independence. He or she must become a father or mother. Another field rich in striking examples is the psychology of Christianity, where the repression of instincts (i.e., of primitive instinctuality) leads to religious substitute formations, such as the medieval Gottesminne) ‘love of God,’ the sexual character of which only the blind could fail to see.

有许多引人注意的著名的例子，对于这些的转化。譬如，当一位小孩开始将他自己主观地跟他的父母分开，替换的父母的幻想就产生。这些幻想几乎总是被转移到真实的人们。这种的移情最后证明是难以自圆其说。因为逐渐成熟的人格必须吸收父母的情结，并且获得权威，负责与独立。他或她必须成为一位父亲或母亲。另外一个充满生动例子的场域是基督教的心理学。在那里，本能的被压抑（譬如，原始的本能），导致宗教的替换的形成，譬如，中世纪的“上帝之爱“。上帝之爱具有性的特性，只有瞎子才会看不出来。

37 These reflections lead us to a further analogy with the theory
of physical energy. As we know, the theory of energy recognizes not only a factor of intensity) but also a factor of extensity) the latter being a necessary addition in practice to the pure concept of energy. It combines the concept of pure intensity with the concept of quantity (e.g., the quantity of light as opposed to its strength). “The quantity, or the extensity factor, of energy is attached to one structure and cannot be transferred to another structure without carrying with it parts of the first; but the intensity factor can pass from one structure to another.” 36 The extensity factor, therefore, shows the dynamic measure of energy present at any time in a given phenomenon.37

这些反思引导我们到达跟物理的能源的理论更加类似。我们知道，能源的理论不但体认出张力的元素，而且体认出扩张到元素。后者在实践时是一个必要的增加到纯粹的能源的观念。它将纯粹张力的观念，跟数量联结一块。（譬如，光的数量跟它的力量对立）。“能源的数量，或扩张的元素，被连接到一个结构，并且无法被转换到另外一个结构，而不随之带着前面的结构的部分。“因此，扩张的元素显示能源的动力程度，存在于特定现象的任何时刻。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 42

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

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY 17

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY 1
论心灵能源
Carl Jung
卡尔 荣格
5. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE ENERGIC POINT OF VIEW
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
IN PSYCHOLOGY
心理学的能源观点的通论
e. Introduction
导论

11. APPLICATION OF THE ENERGIC STANDPOINT
能源观点的运用
a. The Psychological Concept of Energy
能源的心理学的观念
26 The term “psychic energy” has long been in use. We find it,
for example, as early as Schiller,26 and the energic point of view
was also used by von Grot 27 and Theodor LippS.28 Lipps dis¬tinguishes psychic energy from physical energy, while Stern 29 leaves the question of their connection open. We have to thank Lipps for the distinction between psychic energy and psychic force.

“心理能源”这个术语已经被使用很久。譬如，我们发现它，早在希勒哲学。能源的观点也被使用，由范 格罗特与李普斯。李普斯区别心理能源与生理能源的不同。当史特恩开展讨论有关心理能源的这个问题。我们必须感谢李普斯，因为他区别心理能源与心理力量的不同。

~~ CL Berger. Ober die kar!Je’-/ichen Aeusserungen psychischer Zustiinde; Leh¬mann. Die korperlichen A’ussenl1lgen psychischer Zustiinde, trans. (into German) by Bendixen.
23 Peterson and lung. “Psycho-physical Investigations with the Galvanometer and Pneumograph in Normal and Insane Individuals”; Nunberg, “On the Physi¬cal Accompaniments of Association Processes,” in lung, Studies in Word Associa¬tion; Ricksher and lung. “Further Investigations on the Galvanic Phenomenon.” 24 Veraguth, Daspsycho-galvanische ReflexPhiinomen; Binswanger. “On the Psycho-galvanic Phenomenon in Association Experiments.” in lung. Studies in Word Association.
25 Cf. Studies in Word Association and “The Association Method.”
26 Schiller thinks in terms of energy, so to speak. He operates with ideas like “transfer of intensity,” etc. CL On the Aesthetic Education of Man, trans. by Snell.
14

27

28

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY
For Lipps, psychic force is the possibility of processes arising in the psyche at all and of attaining a certain degree of efficiency. Psychic energy, on the other hand, is defined by Lipps as the “inherent capacity of these processes to ,\ctualize this force in themselves.” 30 Elsewhere Lipps speaks of “psychic quanti¬ties.”

对于李普斯，心理力量是起源于心灵并且获得某个程的有效性的这些过程的可能性。另一方面，心理能源则是被李普斯定义，作为“这些过程的本质的能力，可以在它们自身实践这个力量.”。在别的地方，李普斯谈论“心灵的数量”。

The distinction between force and energy is a conceptual necessity, for energy is really a concept and, as such, does not exist objectively in the phenomena themselves but only in the specific data of experience. In other words, energy is always experienced specifically as motion and force when actual, and as a state or condition when potential. Psychic energy appears, when actual, in the specific, dynamic phenomena of the psyche, such as instinct, wishing, willing, affect, attention, capacity for work, etc., which make up the psychic forces. When potential, energy shows itself in specific achievements, possibilities, apti¬tudes, attituaes, etc., which are its various states.

在力量与能源之间的区别是一个观念的必要性。因为能源确实是一个观念，它的本身，并没有客观地存在于现象的本身。而仅是存在于经验的明确的资料里。换句话说，实际方面，能源总是明确地被经验到，作为动作与力量。而在潜力方面，它作为一种状态或条件。心灵的能源出现，在实际方面，在心灵的明确的动力的现象。譬如，本能，愿望，意愿，情感，注意力，工作能力，等等。它们组成心灵的力量。而在潜力方面，能源显示它自己，在明确的成就，可能性，性向，态度，等等。这些都是它的各种不同的状态。

The differentiation of specific energies, such as pleasure energy, sensation energy, contrary energy, etc., proposed by Lipps, seems to me theoretically inadmissible as the specific forms of energy are the above-mentioned forces and states. Energy is a quantitative concept which includes them all. It is only these forces and states that are determined qualitatively, for they are concepts that express qualities brought into action through energy. The concept of quantity should never be quali¬tative at the same time, otherwise it would never enable us to expound the relations between forces, which is after all its real function.

明确能源的差异，譬如，李普斯建议的快乐能源，感官能源，相反能源，等等。我觉得它在理论方面是无法被承认的。因为能源的形式就是以上被提到的力量与状态。能源是一个包含它们全部的数量的观念。仅是这些力量与状态在数量方面被决定。因为它们是表达品质的观念。这些品质通过能源被带进活动。数量的观念永远不应该同时也是品质的观念。否则，我们永远没有办法说明力量之间的这些关系。毕竟，那是它的真实的功能。

Since, unfortunately, we cannot prove scientifically that a relation of equivalence exists between physical and psychic energy,31 we have no alternative except either to drop the energetic viewpoint altogether, or else to postulate a special psychic energy-which would be entirely possible as a hypothetical opera.tion.

不幸地，因为我们无法科学方式来证明，相等的关系存在于生理与心灵的能源。我们没有替代的选择，除了就是将能源的观点汇集一块。否则，就假设一个特别的心灵的能源。那将是完全可能，作为一个假设的运作。
27 “Die Begriffe der Seele und der psychischen Energie in der Psychologie.” 28 Leitfaden der Psychologie, pp. 62, 66f.
29 Stern, Vber Psychologie der individuellen Di/Jerenzen, pp. 1191£. 30 Leitfaden der Psychologie, p. 36 (1903 edn.).
31 Maeder is of the opinion that the “creative activity” of the organism, and par• ticularly that of the psyche, “exceeds the energy consumed.” He also holds that
15

THE STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHE
Psychology as much as physics may avail itself of the right to build its own concepts, as Lipps has already remarked, but only in so far as the energic view proves its value and is not just a summing-up under a vague general concept-an objection justly enough raised by Wundt. We are of the opinion, how¬ever, that the energic view of psychic phenomena is a valuable one because it enables us to recognize just those quantitative relations whose existence in the psyche cannot possibly be, denied but which are easily overlooked from a purely qualita¬tive standpoint.

心理学与物理学同样都可以利用这个权利，来建造它自己的观点。如同李普斯已经谈论过，但是仅是因为能源的观点证明它的价值，而不仅是一个总结，在一个模式的一般的观念。这样的反对意见，温德特刚刚充分地提出。可是，我们认为，心灵现象的能源的观点，是一个有价值的观点。因为它让我们能够体认出那些数量的关系。这些数量关系的存在于心灵，不可能被否认。但是它们很容易被忽视，从纯粹品质的观点。

29 Now if the psyche consisted, as the psychologists of the con-
scious mind maintain, of conscious processes alone (admittedly somewhat “dark” now and then), we might rest content with the postulate of a “special psychic energy.” But since we are persuaded that the unconscious processes also belong to psy¬chology, and not merely to the physiology of the brain (as substratum processes), we are obliged to put our concept of energy on a rather broader basis. We fully agree with Wundt that there are things of which we are dimly conscious. vVe accept, as he does, a scale of clarity for conscious contents, but for us the psyche does not stop where the blackness begins but is continued right into the unconscious. ,,ye also leave brain-psy-chology its share, since we assume that the unconscious func¬tions ultimately go over into substratum processes to which no psychic quality can be assigned, except by way of the philosophi¬cal hypothesis of pan-psych ism.

现在，如同意识心灵的心理学家所主张的，假如心灵仅是由意识的过程组成，（有时，被承认是相当“黑暗”），我们可以满足于“特别的心灵的能源”的这个假设。但是，因为我们相信，无意识的过程也属于心理学，而不仅属于脑袋生理学（作为阶层的过程）。我们不得不将我们的能源的观念，放置在更加广泛的基础。我们完全同意温德特，有些事情，我们仅是模糊地知道。我们像他一样接受清晰的等级，对于意识的内容。但是，对于我们，心灵并没有停止，在黑暗开始的地方，但是它还被继续进入到无意识。我们也留给脑的心理学它应有的一份地位。因为我们认为，无意识的功能最后会重新进入阶层的过程。没有任何心灵的品质能够被指定给那些阶层的过程。除了凭借哲学的假设“泛-心灵论”。

30 In delimiting a concept of psychic energy we are thus faced
with certain difficulties, because we have absolutely no means of dividing what is psychic from the biological process as such. Biology as much as psychology can be approached from the energic standpoint, in so far as the biologist feels it to be useful and valuable. Like the psyche, the life-process in general does not stand in any exactly demonstrable relationship of equiva¬lence to physical energy.

当我们除掉心灵能源的观念的限制，我们因此面对某些的困难。因为我们绝对没有办法来区心灵的东西，跟生物的过程自身的差别。生物学与心理学同样能够被探讨，从能源的观点。因为生物学家感觉它是有用而且有价值。像心灵一样，一般的生命过程并没有处于任何确实可证明的关系，跟生理的能源相等的关系。
in regard to the psyche, together with the principle of conservation and the principle of entropy. one must make use of yet a third principle, that of integra¬tion. Cf. Heilung und Entwicklung im Seelenleben, pp. 50 and 69f.
16

ON PSYCHIC ENERGY
31 If we take our stand on the basis of scientific common sense
and avoid philosophical considerations which would carry us too far, we would probably do best to regard the psychic process simply as a life-process. In this way we enlarge the narrower concept of psychic energy to a broader one of life-energy, which includes “psychic energy” as a specific part. We thus gain the advantage of being able to follow quantjtative relations beyond the narrow confines of the psychic into the sphere of biological functions in general, and so can do justice, if need be, to the long discussed and ever-present problem of “mind and body.”

假如我们根据科学的常识，作为基础的立场，并且避免哲学的考虑，因为那会带领太远，我们将可能最好是将心灵的过程，视为仅是作为一个生命-过程。用这种方式，我们扩大心灵能源的比较狭窄的观念，到更加宽广的生命-能源的观念。它包括“心灵能源”，作为一个明确的部分。我们因此获得这个利益，能够遵循数量的关系，超越狭窄的心灵的范围，进入一般的生物学的功能的范围。这样，我们能够充分处理“心灵与身体”的长久被讨论，目前存在的这个难题，假如需要的话。

32 The concept of life-energy has nothing to do with a so-called
life-force, for this, qua force, would be nothing more than a specific form of universal energy. To regard life-energy thus, and so bridge over the still yawning gulf between physical processes and life-processes, would be to do away with the special claims of bio-energetics as opposed to physical energetics. I have therefore suggested that, in view of the psychological use we intend to make of it, we call our hypothetical life-energy “libido.” To this extent I have differentiated it from a concept of universal energy, so maintaining the right of biology and psy¬chology to form their own concepts. In adopting this usage I do not in any way wish to forestall workers in the field of bio¬energetics, but freely admit that I have adopted the term libido with the intention of using it for our purposes: for theirs, some such term as “bio-energy” or “vital energy” may be preferred.

生命-能源的观念跟所谓的生命-力量根本就没有关系。因为这个作为生命的力量，将仅是普世能源的一个明确的形式。将生命-能源如此看待，然若架起桥梁，跨越这个依旧张开的横沟，处于生理的过程与生命的过程之间。那就是要废除这些特别的宣称，将生物-能源，作为跟生理能源的对立。我因此建议，由于我们打算给予的心理学的用途，我们将称我们假设的生命-能源为“力比多”。随着我曾经区别它跟普世的能源的观念不同，我们维持这个权利，生物学与心理学的权利，跟他们自己的观念的不同。当我们採用这个用途，我根本就没有希望要领先生物学能源的领域的工作者。我仅是承认，我已经採用“力比多”的这个术语，为了使用它，作为我们的目的。为了充当它们的目的，还有某些这样的术语可能被喜爱，譬如，“生物-能源”或“生命力能源”。

33 I must at this point guard against a possible misunderstand- ing. I have not the smallest intention, in the present paper, of letting myself in for a discussion of the controversial question of psychophysical parallelism and reciprocal action. These theories are speculations concerning the possibility of mind and body functioning together or side by side, and they touch on the very point I am purposely leaving out of account here, namely whether the psychic energy process exists independently of, or is included in, the physical process. In my view we know prac¬tically nothing about this.

在这个时刻，我必须捍卫对抗可能的误解。在目前这篇论文，我丝毫没有这个意图要让我自己参与这个讨论：心理与物理的并列主义与互相的活动的这个具有争议性的问题。这些理论是一些推理，关于心灵与身体一块或是并排发挥功能的可能性。它们碰触到这个点，我在此刻意避开考虑的这个点。换句话说，心灵的能源的过程是否独立存在，或被包括在生理的过程里。依我的观点，关于这一点，我们几乎什么都不知道。

Like Busse,I consider the idea of reciprocal action tenable, and can see no reason to prejudice its credibility with the hypothesis of psychophysical parallelism. To the psychotherapist, whose special field lies just in this crucial
32 Geist und Korper, Seele und Leib.
17

THE STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHE
sphere of the interaction of mind and body, it seems highly prob¬able that the psychic and the physical are not two independent parallel processes, but are essentially connected through recipro¬cal action, although the actual nature of this relationship is still completely outside our experience.

就像巴塞，我认为心灵与生理互相活动的这个观念可以自圆其说。我并不明白为什么它假设心理与生理的并列主义的可信度是一种偏见。对于心理治疗师，他的特别的领域就在于心理与身体的互相运作的这个重要的领域里。似乎非常可能的是，心灵与生理并不是两个独立的并列的过程。而是基本上是互相关联，通过互相运作的活动。虽然这个关系的实际的特性，依旧完全还在外面的精神分析经验的外面。

Exhaustive discussions of this question may be all very well for philosophers, but empirical psychology should confine itself to empirically acces¬sible facts. Even though we have not yet succeeded in proving that the processes of psychic energy are included in the physical process, the opponents of such a possibility have been equally unsuccessful in separating the psychic from the physical with any certainty.

对于这个问题的全面的讨论，对于哲学家，很有可能。但是经验的心理学应该限制它自己，到经验方面能够接近的事实。即使我们还没有成功地证明，心灵能源的过程被包括在生理的过程里，这样一个可能性的反对者，一直同样地不成功，当他们将心灵跟生理分开，带着任何确定地。

雄伯译
32hsing@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 42

From an other to the Other 42
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
8.1.69 VI 7

It nevertheless remains that there is the mathematician. The use, the
search for the formalisation of this discourse consists, as I said just
now, in assuring oneself that even if the mathematician completely
evaporates, the discourse holds up of itself. This implies the
construction of a language that is very precisely the one called rather
appropriately then, as you see, mathematical logic. It would be better
to say practice of logic, logical practice in the mathematical domain,
and the condition for realising this test is presented in a double form
that may appear an antinomy.

问题仍然是，有这么一位数学家。对于这个辞说的形式主义化的使用与寻求，如同我刚才所说的，主要在于自己确定，即使这位数学家完全蒸发掉，这个辞说自己仍然能够维持。这暗示着语言的形成，确实就是我们当时恰当所谓的数学逻辑，不妨这样说。我们最好说是逻辑的实践，在数学领域的逻辑的实践。体现这个测验的情况被呈现，以看起来是对立的双重的形式。

On one point this language seems to
have no other concern than to reinforce what is involved in
mathematical discourse whose character I have just reminded you of,
namely, to refine its unequivocal character. The second condition, and
this is why it appears antinomical, is that this unequivocal concerns
what? Always something that one can call object, naturally not an
indifferent one.

在某个时刻，这个语言似乎没有其他的关注，除了就是增强数学辞说里牵涉的东西，为了精炼它的清楚的特性。第二个情况，这就是为什么它看起来是对立。这个清楚的关注什么？总是关注某件东西，我们所谓的客体的东西，当然，并不是一个冷漠的客体。

And that is why, in the whole attempt to extend this
new logical practice beyond the field of mathematics – to illustrate
what that means, I am speaking about Quine’s book Word and object,
for example — when it is a matter of extending this practice to common
discourse, people feel themselves required to start from what is called
object-language, which is nothing other than to satisfy this condition of
a language without equivocation.

那就是为什么，在整个的企图要延伸这个新的逻辑的实践，超越数学的领域—为了说明那是什么意思，我正在言说奎那段书“文字与客体”，譬如。当它的问题是延伸这个实践到普通的辞说，人们感觉自己被要求从所谓的客体-语言开始。客体-语言实实在在就是满足没有模棱两可的语言的这个情况。

An excellent opportunity moreover
to highlight what I always put the emphasis on from the start of my
reference to language. It is of the nature of discourse, of fundamental
discourse, not simply to be equivocal, but to be essentially made up of
the radical slippage of meaning, essential for any discourse.

而且，一个优秀的机会要强调我总是强调的东西，从我提到语言的开始。那是属于辞说的特性，属于基本的辞说，不但是模棱两可，而且基本上是由强烈的意义的滑动组成，对于任何辞说都是基本的。

A first condition then, I said, to be unequivocal. This can only be
referred to a certain object aimed at, of course, in mathematics, not an
object like others. And that is why, once Quine transfers the handling
of this logic to the study of common discourse, he speaks about “ob”
(76) language, stopping prudently at the first syllable! But on the other
hand, the second condition is that this language must be pure writing.

我不妨说，一个最初的情况因此就是不要模拟两款。这仅能够被提到某个被目标的客厅。当然，在数学里，不是像在其他学科的客体。那就是为什么，奎那转换这个逻辑的处理，转换到普通辞说的研究。他谈论有关“客体”的语言，谨慎地在遇到第一个音节，就停顿下来！但是，在另一方面，第二个情况是，语言一定是纯粹的书写。

That nothing of what concerns it ought to be constituted only by
interpretations. The whole structure – 1 mean that one can attribute to
the object — is what constructs this writing. Hence there is nothing in
this formalisation that is not posited as interpretation. To the
nevertheless fundamental equivocation of common discourse there is
opposed here the function of isomorphism, namely, what constitutes a
certain number of domains as falling under the. capture of one and
same written formula.

跟它相关的东西，没有一样应该仅是由解释组成。整个的结构，我的意思是我们能够归属于这个客体—那就是组成这个书写的东西。因此，在这个形式主义里，没有一样东西不被提出作为解释。对于普通辞说这个仍然是基本的模棱两可，类同形式的功能在此作为对立。换句话说，组成某些的领域，作为是归属于某种的书写的公式的捕捉之下。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
8.1.69

When one enters into the experience of what is thus constructed, if one
takes a little trouble that I did not believe was unworthy of me to take,
as the article evoked above seems to suppose, and if one approaches
Godel’s theorem, for example — and after all it is within the reach of
each of you, it is enough to buy a good book or go to some good
places. We have gone multi-disciplinary, after all it is perhaps a
requirement that did not emerge from nothing.

当我们进入这个经验，因此而被建构的经验，假如我们稍微费心，我并不相信，这不值得我们费心，当以上被引用的这篇文章，似乎假设，假如我们接近歌得尔的公理，譬如—毕竟，就在你们每个人都能力范围之内，你们只要买一本好书，或去某些好的地方。我们已经成为多重科目，毕竟，这或许是一件要求，并非无中生有的要求。

It is perhaps from
seeing the trouble one has from what is improperly called mental
limitation – a theorem like this, moreover there are two of them, will
tell you that as regards the domain of discourse that seems to be most
assured, namely, arithmetical discourse, two and two are four all the
same, there is nothing on which one is more securely based. Naturally
people did not remain at that! Since that time, many things have been
glimpsed, but which in appearance are only in the strict development
of this two and two are four, in other words, that starting from there,
there is a discourse that, to all appearances, can be called consistent.

或许从我们拥有的费心开始，从并不恰当地称为是“精神-限制”开始—像这样的一个公理，而且，有两个这样的公理—将会告诉你们，关于辞说的领域，这个辞说似乎非常确定，换句话说，算术的辞说，仍然是2+2=4的辞说，没有一样东西，比起我们更加确定的东西。当然，人们并没有始终追寻那些东西！自从那时，许多东西已经被瞥见。但是，外表上，它们仅是在这个2+2=4的严格发展里。换句话说，从那里开是，有一个辞说，外表上，能够被称为是具有一致性。

This means that when you state a proposition in it, you can say yes or
no, this is acceptable, is a theorem, as they say, of the system. This one
is not and is its negation which is, on this occasion, if one thinks one
should take the trouble of making a theorem of everything that can be
posited there as negative. Well then, this implies that this result is
obtained by way of a series of procedures on which no doubt is
brought to bear and that are called proofs.

这意味著，当你们陈述一个命题时，你们能够说是或不是，这是可被接受的，如人们所说，这是这个系统的公理。这个公理并不是公理，而是它的否定。在这个场合。假如我们认为我们应该费心去将每样东西能够被提出东西，化为公理，总是会存在着公理的否定。呵呵，这暗示着，这个结果被获得，凭借一系列的程序。对于这些程序，并没有给予怀疑，它们被称为证据。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

From an other to the Other 41

From an other to the Other 41
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

http://www.lacaninireland.com
8.1.69 VI 5

To return to this crucial point about the distinction between form and
formalism, I will try, because this is what is first necessary to illustrate
it from some forms. It is very necessary for whoever is engaged as is
the case for the psychoanalyst in the cuts that, by affecting a field to
which the body is exposed, culminate indeed at the fell of something
that has some form.

为了回答这个关键点，关于形式与形式主义的区别。我将尝试，因为这是首先必要的地方，为了说明它，从某些的形式。这是非常必要的，对于任何参与的人，如同在对于精神分析家的个案，确实在具有某个形式的东西的这个掉落达到高潮，凭借影响身体被暴露的领域。

Nevertheless, I would recall — to touch on one of
these images that psychoanalytic experience isolates and one does not
know how — the cup/cut (coupe) that contains the milk, the one that
evokes its being taken inside out under the name of breast, the first of
the o- objects, this cut is not the structure through which the breast is
affirmed as homologous to the sticking on of the placenta, because it is
the siame physiologically, and, unless the word comes into play, its
reality.

可是，我将会提醒—为了探讨那个精神分析经验孤立出来的其中一个意象。我们并不知道如何—包容牛奶的这个杯子/切割，召唤它的存在，由内部向外，在乳房的名称之下。最早先的一个客体。这个切割并不是这个结构，通过这个结构，乳房被肯定，作为跟胎盘的附着类同。因为它在生理方法是双生的。除非这个字词运作，这也是它的现实。

Only even to know what I have just said, namely, before this
breast is implicated in the dialectic of the o-object, even to know what
it is there, I mean physiologically, a rather advanced zoology is
necessary. And this by the explicit use, otherwise it is not visible, of a
classification whose relations to logic one would be wrong to
minimise.

甚至仅是为了知道我刚刚说的话，换句话说，在这个乳房被牵涉到这个小客体的辩证法，甚至为了知道在那里它是什么，我指的是生理方法。一个相当进步的动物学是必要的。凭借明确的使用分类法，否则它是无法看见，这个分类法跟逻辑的关系，假如我们忽视它，那我们就犯错了。

Aristotelian logic has been reproached for having, with its
use of the terms of genus, species, simply stuck onto a zoological
practice the existence of individuals zoologically defined. One must
be consistent and, if one states this more or less reprehensible remark,
note that inversely this zoology itself implies a logic, made up of a
structure, and of a logical structure, of course. As you see, it is the
frontier between what every explorative experience already implies
and what is going to be put in question about the emergence of the
subject.

亚里斯多德的逻辑曾经被谴责，因为它仅是将动物学定义的个人的存在，塞进动物学的实践，以及它对于种类，品种的术语的使用。我们必须前后一致，假如我们陈述这个相对可被谴责的谈论，我们必须注意到，相反地，这个动物学本身暗示一个逻辑，它由结构组成，当然，由一个逻辑的结构。你们看见，它就是这个边境，处于每个探索的经验已经暗示的东西，与将要被质疑的东西之间，关于主体的出现。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
8;1.69 VI 6

In mathematics, formalism will be brought out better in its function as
cut. And in effect, what do we see as regards what is involved in the
way it is used? Formalism in mathematics is characterised as follows.
It is grounded on the attempt to reduce this discourse that I announced
earlier, mathematical discourse, a discourse of which people have been
able to say – and certainly not from the outside, it has also been said
from the outside, it was what Koj&ve said but he was only taking it up
from the mouth of Bertrand Russell – that this discourse has no sense
and that one never knows whether what is said in it is true.

在数学方法，形式主义将会被显示得更加贴切，在它的功能里，作为切割。实际上，我们看见什么？关于所被牵涉的东西，，在它被使用的方式？在数学的形式主义被表现特征如下：它以企图化简这个辞说作为基础，我早先宣佈的这个辞说，数学辞说。人们一直能够言说这个辞说，确实并不是从外部。它也一直能够从外部来言说。那就是科杰尔所说的东西。但是他仅是从伯朗德 罗素的嘴里探讨它。这个辞说并没有意义，我们从来不知道，在它里面所被说的东西是否真实。

An extreme, paradoxical formula regarding which it is worth recalling that
it comes from Bertrand Russell one of the initiators of the logical
(75) formalisation of this discourse itself. This attempt to take this
discourse and to submit it to this test that we could define in short in
these terms, to take one’s assurance from what indeed it appears to be,
namely, functioning without the subject. Because indeed to make even
those who are not immediately with it sense what I am designating
here, who then will ever speak, as regards what guarantees
mathematical construction, of any incidence whatsoever of what can be
detached from it as observer?

这是一个极端而悖论的公式。关于这个公式，值得提醒的是，它来自伯朗德 罗素。罗素是这个辞说自身的逻辑形式主义化的开创者之一。这个企图，接受这个辞说并且将它承受考验的这个企图，总之，我们能够定义它，用这些术语。接受我们的确信，从它确实看起来的样子。换句话说，没有主体就发挥功能。因为确实为了让那些没有从事它的人们也理解我在此正在指明的东西，谁将会言说，关于是什么保证数学的建构？谁将会言说任何的意外，关于作为观察者，什么能够被隔离，跟它隔离？

There is no conceivable trace there of
what is called “subjective error”, even if it is here one can give the
systems that allow it to be given a measurable sense elsewhere. This
has nothing to do with mathematical discourse itself; even when it
discourses about subjective error, it is in terms — I mean the terms of
the discourse — for which there is no middle. They are exact,
irrefutable, or they are not so. Such is at least its requirement; nothing
will be accepted that is not indispensable as such.

对于所谓的“主观性的错误”，在那里，并没有可构想的痕迹，即使在这里，我们能够给予这些系统。这些系统让它能够被给予一个可以测量的意义，在别的地方。这跟数学的辞说本身并没有丝毫的关系。即使当它论述关于主体的错误，用这些术语—我指的是这个辞说的术语—对于这个术语，并没有中庸之道。它们是确实的，无法反驳的，要不然它们就不是这样。至少，它的要求是这样，凡是本身并非是无可免除的东西，没有一样将会被接受。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com