From an other to the Other 54

From an other to the Other 54

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.


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: