From an other to the Other 54

From an other to the Other 54
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

22.1.69 VIII 5

The Name o f the Father – 1 am going to announce it like that at the start
because it will perhaps be the best way to detach you from the effort of
fascination that emerges from these confusions – the Name o f the Father,
that I am insisting on to say that it is not by chance that I was not able to
speak about it, the Name o f the Father takes on here a singular form that I
am asking you to carefully locate at the level of the wager. This will
change for you perhaps the haggling that the authors on this subject have
usually devoted themselves to about whether it is worthwhile to wager.

“以父亲之名“,刚一开始,—我将要像样宣告它。因为它或许将是最好的方法,将你自己跟著迷的努力隔离开始。这个著迷产生于这些混乱当中—”以父之名“。我正在坚持要说:我无法谈论关于它,并非出于偶然。”以父之名“在此具有一个独特的形式,我正在要求你们仔细定位在这个赌注的层次。这将会跟你们改变这个喧哗争论,作者们针对这个主体,通常专注的喧哗争论,关于下这个赌注是否值得。

(98) What is worthwhile, is to consider how it is formulated from the pen
of Pascal. I would say that this singular form, in the statement of what
comes at the top of this little paper, this singular form is what I would call
the absolute real; and the absolute real, on this little paper, is what is
stated as heads or tails. Heads or tails (croix ou pile), it is not a matter of
the cross, you can get that out of your heads. “Croix ou pile” was the way
at the time of saying what we would call today heads or tails.

值得的东西是要考虑到,从巴斯卡的笔端,它如何被阐述。我想要说,这个独特的形式,用这个陈述,流露在这张小纸的顶端。这个独特的形式上我所谓的绝对的实在。在这张小纸上,绝对的实在就是所被陈述的东西,作为头或尾巴。无论是头或尾巴,这并不是十字架的问题。你们能够从你们脑海里想出这个。“Croix ou pile”(头或尾巴的机率分析), 就是这个方式,在说出我们今天所谓的头或尾巴。

I want you to get the idea that if it is conceivable that we should arrive, at
some point, at the final term of any science whatsoever in the modem
sense, namely, by the operation of what is called a measure, it can only be
very precisely at the point when what is to be said, is “heads or tails”, “it
, is that or it is not that”. It is what it is, there, because up to then, nothing
confirms for us that we are not just measuring our own measures. It must
come to a point, heads or tails, at which it is only the real that is involved
as a check.

我想要你们获得这个观念,假如这是可以构想的,在某个时刻,我们应该到达任何科学的最后的术语,在现代意义。换句话说,凭借所谓的测量的运作。那仅能够确实就是这个时刻,当应该被说出的东西是“头或尾巴“。”那是那个,或不是那个“。那就是它的本质,因为直到那个时候,没有一样东西跟我们肯定,我们目前不仅是测量我们自己的测量而已。它必须来到一个时刻,头或尾巴。在那个时刻,被牵涉到的仅是实在界,作为检查。

Pascal’s wager contains at its start something that is referred to this pole
point, the absolute real. And this all the more in that what is at stake, is
precisely something that is defined: that we cannot know either whether
He is or is not. This is explicitly what Pascal articulates as regards what
is at stake, which of course, at the level of the wager, if the question of its
act is posed, may well in effect be expressed by the question of the
existence or not of the partner.

巴斯卡的赌注在它的开始包含某件东西,在这个极端点被提到的东西,这个绝对的实在界。这更加是如此,在它岌岌可危的东西,那确实说某件被定义的东西,我们无法知道上帝是否存在,或是否不存在。这明确地是巴斯卡表达的东西,关于岌岌可危的东西。当然,在这个赌注的层次。假如它的行动的问题被提出,这个岌岌可危的东西很有理由实际上被表达,以参与者是否存在的这个问题表达。

But there is not just the partner. There is the stake. And this is the
interest of Pascal’s wager. The stake, the fact that he can pose in these
terms the question of our measure with respect to the real, the stake
supposes that a step has been taken that, whatever the amateurs of
historical ferreting out may say, namely, that already Raymond Sebond,
Pere Sirmond and Pierre Charron had brought up something of the order
of this risk. Overlooking that if Pascal can advance in a fashion that
makes it not at all a matter of chance that it has been so profoundly felt in
the field of where it thinks, it is because he profoundly modified the
approach of what is involved in the “I say”, I mean of the I of the gambler.
And this by proceeding as I might say to something that might be called
an exorcism, the day he discovered the rules of games.

但是并不仅是参与者。还有这个赌注。这就是巴斯卡的赌注的興趣。这个赌注,他能够用这些术语提出我们的测量的这个问题,关于实在界。这个赌注假设,有一个步骤被採取,无论历史的孜孜追寻的业余者会说些什么,西巴德,索曼与查容已经提出某件东西,属于这个冒险的秩序的东西。假如巴斯卡能够用某种方式前进,这个方式让它成为根本就不是机率的问题,它曾经如此深刻地被感受到,在它思维的领域。那是因为他深刻地修正这个方法,所被牵涉的东西,在这个“我说“。我指的是赌徒的这个”我“。我不妨说,凭借继续到某件东西,可能被称为”驱魔“的东西。他发现遊戏规则的这一天。

22.1.69 VIE 6

The resistances he encounters after having posed the problem of the just
way to divide up the stake when, for some reason or other, necessary or by
mutual consent, an interruption takes place during a game whose rules had
already been given, the pivot of what allows him to settle it in such
fruitful way, that it is through this that he articulates the foundation of
what is called the mathematical triangle.

他遭遇的抗拒,在他提出这个难题之后,正确的区分这个赌注的难题,有某个理由,必要或是互相有共识的理由,在遊戏期间,中断会发生,遊戏的规则已经被给予。让他能够解决它的关键,用如此有成果的方法。凭借这个方法,他表达这个基础,所谓的数学的三角形的基础。

This assuredly, of course, had
already discovered by someone called Tartaglia. But he did not
necessarily have to know that, moreover, besides, he draws different
consequences from it. Because it is through it that he rejoins, takes up
again and gives a new push to what, in the laws of the maximum and the
(99) minimum in Archimedes, a prelude to what is going to be bom from
integral calculus.

当然,这确实是已经被某一位名叫塔塔力亚的人所发现。但是他并没有必要知道,而且,从它那里,他获得不同的结果。因为通过它,他重新加入,再次採取,给予新的推动,在阿基米德的最大量与最小量的法则里,推动一个前奏,对于将要从整数微积分诞生的东西。

All of this rests on this simple remark, to settle what is
at stake, which is that the essence of the game, in what it involves in terms
of logic because it is regulated, depends on the fact that what is bet is lost
at the start. While the question of the lure of gain distorts, refracts, in a
way that does not allow theoreticians not to be weakened in their
articulations, this initial purification allows there to be stated in a proper
way what has to be done in order to carry out at every moment a sharing
out of what is there at the centre as stake, as lost.

所有这一切都依靠这个简单的谈论。为了解决岌岌可危的东西。那就是遊戏的本质,在它牵涉的东西,用逻辑的术语。因为它被规范,依靠这个事实:所被赌博的东西,从一开始就已经输了。虽然赢得的陷阱的问题扭曲,反射,用的方式并没有让理论家不变得虚弱,在他们的表达里。这个最初的清净化让这个问题用合宜的方式被陈述,什么必须被做的这个问题。为了在每个时刻执行一份分享,从在中心作为赌注的东西,作为是已经输掉。

The question is interesting for us analysts, because it allows us to attach to
it the essential motivation for the emergence of such a concatenation. If
there is an activity whose starting point is grounded on the assumption of
loss, it is indeed because what is at stake in the very approach of any rule –
namely, of a signifying concatenation, of an effect of loss – is very
precisely what I have been trying to dot the i’s of from the beginning.

这个问题是有趣的,对于我们精神分析家。因为它让我们能够给予它附连上这个基本的动机,让这样的连锁反应的出现。假如有一个活动的开始的时刻,是以输掉的假设作为基础,那确实是因为岌岌可危的东西,在任何规则的接近时,成为能指的连锁反应的任何规则,输掉的结果的任何规则。那确实是我一直尝试要从一开始就一丝不苟。

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: