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

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

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

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

Identification 272

Identification 272
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 354

(16) And, it is on this that the affects, he tells us, the
emotions considered here in his writing as entangled, if I may
express myself in this way, with the signifier, and taken up as
such. It is in this connection that he tells us that all the
confirmed emotions, what I might call the conventional forms of
emotion are nothing other than ontogenetic inscriptions of what
he compares, of what he reveals as expressly equivalent to
hysterical attacks, which is to come back to the relationship to
the signifier.

他告诉我们，这些情感，在他的著作，在此 被考虑的这些情感，作为纠缠于这个关系，假如我可以用这样的方式表达我自己，跟这个能指。这些情感被从事，作为这样的情感。关于这一点，他告诉我们，所有的被证实的情感，我所谓的传统的情感的形式，实实在在就是本体起源的铭记，他所比较的东西，他揭露的东西，作为生动地相等于是癔症的侵袭。那将会回答跟能指的关系。

The emotions are in a way the leavings (caduques) of behaviour,
the fallen parts taken up as signifying. And what is most
tangible, everything that we can see about them, is found in
antique forms of fighting. Let those who have seen the film
Rashomon remember the strange interludes which suddenly suspend
the combatants who carry out each one separately three little
circuits around themselves, make a paradoxical genuflection to
some unknown part or other of space.

这些情感在某方面就是行为的剩余，被从事作为成为能指点掉落的部分。最为具体的东西，每一样我们能够看见的东西，关于它们，被找到，在战斗的古老形式里。让那些看见过“Rashomon”这个影片的人们记住这些奇异的插曲。这些奇异的插曲悬置这些战斗者，他们执行每一个分开的三次的小循环，环绕他们自己。从事一个矛盾的屈膝致敬，针对空间的某个未知的部分。

This forms part of the
fight, just as in the sexual parade Freud teaches us to recognise
this type of interruptive paradox of incomprehensible scansions.
If something about emotions is shown to us in the case of the
hysteric, it is precisely when she is on the track of desire, it
is this clearly mimicked characteristic which is described as
being out of place, which deceives you and from which you draw an
impression of falseness. What does it mean, if not that the
hysteric of course can do nothing other than seek the desire of
the Other where it is, where it leaves its trace in the other, in
Utopia, or indeed in atopia, distress, even fiction; in short it
is along the path of display as one might expect, that all the
symptomatic aspects are shown. And if these symptoms find this
path already opened out, it is in liaison with this relationship
that Freud designates to the desire of the Other.

这形成战斗的部分，正如在性的展示，弗洛依德教导我们要体认出来这种的中断的展示，属于无法被理解的审视。假如关于情感的某件东西被显示给予我们，在癔症者的情况，那确实是当她正在追逐欲望。那就是这个请楚被模拟的特性，被描述作为不合时宜。它欺骗你，从它那里，你获得虚假的印象。那是什么意思？它难道不就是，癔症者的作为当然实实在在就是寻找大他者的欲望，在那里•，它留下它的痕迹在大他者那里，在乌托邦，或确实在理想，痛苦，甚至幻想里。总之，沿着展示的这个途径，如同我们可能期望的，所有的症状的方面被显示。假如这些症状发现这个途径已经被展开，就是在跟这个关系的发泄里，弗洛依德指明给大他者的欲望。

I had something else to point out to you about frustration. Of
course, what I brought you this year about the relationship to
the body, what is only outlined in the way in which I gave you in
a mathematical corpus the beginnings of all sorts of paradoxes
concerning the idea that we can have of the body, finds its
applications undoubtedly well designed to modify profoundly the
idea that we may have of frustration as a sort of lack which
concerns a gratification referred to what is supposed to be a
so-called primitive totality as people would like to see it
(17) designated in the relationships of the mother and the child.

我还有某件其他东西跟你们指出，关于挫折。当然，我今年带给你们的东西，关于跟身体的关系，用这种方式仅是被描绘轮廓的东西。我用这个方式给予你们，在数学的著作，各色各样的悖论的开始。关于这个观念，对于身体，我们能够拥有的观念。它找到它的那些运用，无可置疑地，被良好设计，为了深刻地修饰这个观念，我们可能会有的观念，关于挫折，作为是一种欠缺。这种欠缺关注到一种被提到的满足，被认为是所谓的原始的整体性，如同人们想要看见它被指明，在母亲跟小孩的关系。

It is strange that analytic thinking has never encountered on
this path except as always in corners of Freud’s observations –
and here I am designating the word Schleier – this caul with
which the child is born and which hangs around analytical
literature without it being ever dreamt that we had here the
beginning of a very fruitful path: the stigmata.

奇怪的是，精神分析的思维从来没有遭遇这个途径，除了作为总是在弗洛依德的观察到角落。在此，我正在指明“Schleier”这个字词，小孩诞生时具有的薄膜。它悬置环绕精神分析的文献，但是它从来没有被梦想到，我们在此拥有这个开始，具有良好成果的途径：这个胎记。

27.6.62 XXVI 355

If there is something which allows some primary narcissism or
other to be conceived of as involving a totality – and here I can
only regret that someone who posed me the question has absented
himself – it is undoubtedly the reference of the subject, not so
much to the body of the host mother, but to these lost envelopes
where there is so well read this continuity between the inside
and the outside, which is the one to which my model of this year
introduced you, to which we will have to return.

假如有某件东西，让某个原初的自恋能够被构想，作为牵涉到整体性。在此，我仅能够遗憾，某个人跟我提出这个问题，他现在不在现场。无可置疑，那是主体的指称，不是提到代理母亲的身体，而是提到那些失落的涵盖物，内部与外部之间的连续性在那里被阅读。我今年的这个模式就是跟你们介绍这个连续性，我们将必须回头探讨它。

Simply I want to indicate to you, because we will rediscover it
subsequently, that if there is something in which there ought to
be accentuated the relationship to the body, to incorporation, to
Einverleibung, it is on the side of the father who is entirely
left to one side that you should look.

我仅是想要跟你们指示，因为随后我们将重新发现它。假如有某件东西，跟身体的这个关系应该被强调，跟合并的这个关系，跟Einverleibung（父亲）的关系，就是父亲的这一边，它完全被留给你们应该寻找到这一边。

I left him entirely to one side because I would have had to
introduce you – but when will I do it – to a whole tradition
which is called mystical and which undoubtedly, by its presence
in the Semitic tradition, dominates the whole personal adventure
of Freud.

我将他完全留给一边，因为我本来必须跟你们介绍给整个传统—但是我将何时做到—所谓的神秘的东西，无可置疑地，凭借它存在于闪族的传统，它支配弗洛伊德的整个的个人的冒险。

But if there is something that one demands of the mother, does it
not appear to you to be striking that it should be the only thing
that she does not have, namely the phallus? The whole dialectic
of these last years, up to and including the Kleinian dialectic,
which nevertheless gets closest to it, remains falsified because
the accent is not put on this essential divergence.

但是，假如有某件东西，我们要求母亲，你们难道不觉得引人注意吗？那竟然是唯一的东西，母亲并没有拥有的，那就是阳具。过去几年来的整个的辩证法，一直到克莱恩的辩证法，它仍然是最靠近它。它始终是虚假的，因为重点并没有被放置在这个基本的差异。

The fact is moreover that it is impossible to correct it, impossible also to
understand anything about what constitutes the impasse of the
analytic relationship, and very especially in the transmission of
analytic truth as didactic analysis carries it out. The fact is
that it is impossible to introduce into it the relationship to
the father, that one is not the father of one’s analysand. I
have said enough and done enough to ensure that no-one would dare
any longer, at least in any entourage that is close to mine, risk
advancing that one can be his mother. This nevertheless is what
is involved.

而且，事实上，我们不可能改正它，也不可能理解任何事情，关于组成精神分析的关系的僵局，特别是在精神分析的真理的传递，依照教学的精神分析执行它。事实上，我们不可能介绍跟父亲的关系进入它。我们并不是我们的分析者的父亲。我已经充分说过，并且充分做过，为了保证，没有任何人再胆敢冒险提出，某人是他的母亲。至少在跟我接近的追随者，没有人胆敢。可是，这是被牵涉到的问题。

(18) The function of analysis as it is inserted where Freud left
it to us with its open future, its gaping trace, is situated
where the pen fell from his hand in connection with the article
on the splitting of the ego at the ambiguous point which brings
the following; the object of castration is this term which is
ambiguous enough for it to happen that at the very moment that
the subject has busied himself with repressing it he establishes
it more firmly than ever in an Other.

精神分析的功能，依照它被插入，在那里，弗洛伊德留下它给予我们，用它的开放的未来，它的张开的踪迹，它被定位在钢笔从他的手中掉落的地方，关于这篇文章，探讨自我的分裂，在带来以下的模糊暧昧的点。阉割的客体是这个术语，足够模糊暧昧让它发生：在主体自己忙碌于压抑它的这个时刻，他比起以前更加坚定地建立它，在一位大他者身上。

So long as we have not recognised that this object of castration
is the very object through which we situate ourselves in the
field of science, I mean that it is the object of our science as
number or quantity may be the object of mathematics, the
dialectic of analysis, not only its dialectic but its practice,
its relationship even and even the structure of its community
will remain in suspense.

只要我们还没有体认出，阉割的这个客体就是这个客体，经由这个客体，我们定位我们自己，在科学的领域。我的意思是，我们的科学的客体，作为数目或是数量，可能就是数学的客体，精神分析的辩证法，不但是它的辩证法，而且是它的实践，甚至是它的关系，甚至是它的社区的结构将始终在悬置当中。

Next year, I will deal for you, pursuing strictly the point at
which I left you today, with anxiety

明年，我将跟你们处理焦虑的问题。就在今天我离开你们的这个点追寻。

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

27.6.62 XXVI 356

Identification 271

Identification 271
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 12

I will pass over the steps which go by way of this “while perched
on his shoulders the word it and the word I began their carnage”,
to the confrontation that I was aiming at in evoking this passage
for you:

我将忽略这些步骤，凭借这个绕过「当这个字词栖息他的肩膀上，这个字词“它”，这个字词“我”，开始他们的杀戮」，到达这个冲突，我正在目标的冲突，当我跟你们引用这个段落：

“His hands tried to touch an impalpable and unreal body. It
was such a horrible effort that this thing which drew away
from him and in drawing away tried to attract him, appeared
to him the same as the one that got unspeakably closer. He
fell to the ground. He had the feeling of being covered
with impurities, each part of his body underwent an agony,
his face was forced to touch evil, his lungs to breathe it.

他的手尝试碰触到这个没有实体，非真实的身体。那是如此可怕的努力，以致这个从他撤离的东西，正在撤离时，却尝试吸引他。对于他而言，那似乎是相同的，跟这个变得无以言喻的更加靠近的东西。他掉落地方。他拥有这个感觉，被那些肮脏的东西掩盖的感觉，他的身体的每个部分经历一种痛苦。他的脸孔被迫碰触邪恶，他的肺被迫呼吸邪恶。

He was there on the floor, twisting himself, then entering
into himself, then emerging. He crawled heavily scarcely
different from the serpent that he would have wished to
become in order to believe in the venom that he felt in his
mouth. It was in this state that he felt himself bitten or
struck, he could not know which, by what seemed to him to be
a word but which resembled rather a gigantic rat, with
piercing eyes, with pure teeth, an all-powerful
beast. Seeing it a few inches from his face he could not
escape from the desire to devour it, to draw it into the
most profound intimacy with himself; he threw himself on it
and digging his nails into its entrails, he tried to make it
his own.

他躺在地板上那里，扭曲他自己，然后进入他自己，然后出现。他沉重地爬著，几乎跟蛇没有什么两样。他本来会希望他会成为蛇，为了相信他在他的嘴巴里感觉到的毒液。就在这个状态，他感觉被咬啮，或被打击。他不知道是哪一种。被他觉得是一个字词，但是这个字词相当类似巨大的老鼠，有敏锐的眼睛，纯净的牙齿，力量强大的野兽。当他看见它距离他的脸孔仅几英寸，他无法逃避，想要吞噬它的欲望，想要将它拉进跟他自己最深奥亲密的欲望。他将他自己投掷在它上面，用他的指甲挖它的内脏，他尝试让它成为他自己。

(14) The end of the night came. The light which shone
through the shutters was extinguished. But the struggle
with the terrible beast, which had finally revealed itself
to be of an incomprehensible dignity and magnificence lasted
for an immeasurable time. This struggle was horrible
for the being lying on the floor grinding his teeth,
furrowing his face, tearing out his eyes in order to get the
animal to enter, and who would have looked like a demon if
he had not resembled a man. It was almost too beautiful
for this sort of black angel, covered with red hairs,
with sparkling eyes.

夜晚的结束来临。透过窗帘闪亮的光被熄灭。但是，跟这只可怕的野兽的奋斗，延伸无法测量的时间。这只可怕的野兽最后显露它自己，作为具有无法理解的尊严与辉煌。这个奋斗是可怕的，对于躺在地板上的这个人，磨砺他的牙齿，钻进他的脸孔，挖出他的眼睛，为了让这个动物进入。假如他当时看起来不像是人，他本来会像是魔鬼。那几乎太过于美丽，对于这种黑暗的天使，头上司红色的头发，眼睛闪亮有神。

Sometimes one believed he had triumphed and he saw
descending into himself with an ungovernable nausea, the
word innocence defiling him; sometimes the other devoured
him in his turn, dragged him back through the hole through
which it had come, then rejected him like a hard and empty
body.

有时，我们相信，他已经战胜利，他看见这个字词降落进入他自己，具有一种无法控制的呕吐，污染他的“纯真”这个字词。有时，另外一个字词论的他吞噬他，将他拖回经过这个空洞，它先前由这个空洞过来，然后排斥他，就像一个坚硬而空无的身体。

On every occasion, Thomas was repulsed to the very
foundations of his being by the very words which had haunted
him and which he had pursued like his nightmare and like the
explanation of his nightmare. He discovered himself still
more empty and more heavy, he no longer stirred except with
an infinite fatigue. His body, after such a struggle became
entirely opaque and to those who regarded it, he gave the
restful impression of sleep even though he had been
ceaselessly awake.”

在每个场合，托马对于他的存在厌恶到骨子里，由于这些字词萦绕他。他曾经追逐这些字词，就像是他的梦魇，就像是他的梦魇的解释。他发现他自己依旧更加空无，更加沉重。他不再移动自己，除了用无限的疲倦。他的身体，经过奋斗后，变成完全地倾斜。对于关注它的那些人们，他给予睡眠的休憩的印象。即使他始终不停地清醒。

You can read the rest yourselves.

你们自己不妨阅读其余的文本。

27.6.353 XXVI 13
And the path of what Maurice Blanchot uncovers for us does not
stop there. If I took the trouble here to indicate this passage
to you, it is because as the time comes for me to leave you this
year I want to tell you that I am often aware of doing nothing
here other than allowing you to advance with me to the point that
all around us many of the best people have already got to.
Other people have noted the parallel between some of the
researchs that are being carried on at present and the ones that
we are elaborating here together. I would have no trouble
reminding you that on other paths, the works and then the
reflections on the works by himself of Pierre Klossowski converge
with this path of research into phantasy as we have elaborated it
(15) this year.

莫瑞斯 布朗肖替我们挖掘出的东西的途径，并没有停顿那里。假如我们在此费这个力3气来跟你们指出这个段落，那是因为我今年离开你们的时刻来到。我想要告诉你们，我经常知道，在此我所做的事情实实在在就是让你们能够跟我一块到达这个时刻：在我们周遭，许多最好的人们已经到达的时刻。其他的人们已经注意到这个并列，处于一些目前正在被执行的研究，我们正在这里一块建构的研究。我并不费力气地提醒你们，对于其他的途经，这些著作，还有皮尔 克罗索斯基自己对于这些著作的反思。它们跟研究幻见的这个途经不谋而合，如同我们今年曾经建构它。

Small i of small o and small o, their difference, their
complementarity and the mask that one constitutes for the other,
this is where I have led you this year. Small i of small o, its
image, is therefore not its image, it does not represent it, this
object of castration. It is not in any way this representative
of the drive on which repression is brought to bear electively.
And for a double reason: the fact is that it is not, this image,
either the Vorstellung because it is itself an object, a real
image – consult what I wrote on this subject in my observations
on the report of Daniel Lagache, – nor an object which is not the
same as small o, which is not its representative either. i(o)
and o.

小客体（o）的小魅影理想自我（i）, 与小客体（o），它们的差异，它们的互相辅助，其中一个替另外一个形成的这个面具。这就是我今年引导你们的东西。小客体（o）的小魅影理想自我（i），它的意象，因此并不是它的意象。它根本就不是这个冲动的这个代表，压抑被迫选择地跟这个冲动有关联。因为双重的理由：事实上，并不是这个意象，既不是这个理型，因为它的自身是一个客体，一个真实的意象。请你们参照一下我书写过针对这个主题的东西，在我观察丹尼尔 拉加奇的报告。它也不是一个跟小客体（o）不同的客体，它也不是它的代表，i（o）与（o）。

Desire, you must not forget, is situated where in the graph? It
aims at the phantasy $ barred cut of little o, in a mode
analogous to that of e where the ego refers itself to the
specular image. What does that mean, if not that there is some
relationship of this phantasy to the desirer himself. $4 o

你们一定不要忘记，欲望被确定位置，在图形的哪里？欲望的目标是由于小客体（o）的被划杠的切割的主体（$）的幻见。使用的模式类似自我的模式。在那里，自我提到魅影理想的意象。那是什么意思？它难道不是有着这个幻见跟他自己的某个关系：$o。

But can we make of this desirer purely and simply the agent of
desire? Let us not forget that at the second stage of the graph
d, desire is a “who” who responds to a question, which is not
aimed at a “who”, but a “Che vuoi?”.

但是，我们如何能够解释这个欲望者，用纯粹而单纯是欲望的代理者？让我们不要忘记，在图形的第二阶段，欲望是一个“谁”，这个“谁”回应一个问题。这个问题的目标并不是朝向“谁”，而是朝向“大他者欲望我什么？”

To the question: “Che vuoi?” the desirer is the response, the response which is not designated by the who of “who wants?”, but the response of the
object. What I want in the phantasy determines the object from
which the desirer that it contains must avow himself as desirer.

针对这个问题：“大他者欲望我什么？”，欲望者就是这个回应，不是“谁想要什么？“的这个”谁“指明的回应。而是这个客体的回应。在这个幻见里，我想要的东西，决定这个客体。从这个客体，它包含的这个欲望者必须宣称他自己，作为欲望者。

Look for him always, this desirer, at the core of any object of
desire, and do not put up necrophilic perversion as an objection
because precisely this is the example where it is proved that on
this side of (en-deca) the second death physical death still
leaves something to be desired and that the body allows itself be
grasped there as entirely caught up in the function of the
signifier, separated from itself and a witness to what the
necrophilic embraces: an ungraspable truth.

请你们总是寻找他，这位欲望者，在欲望的任何客体的核心。并且建立恋尸癖，作为反对理由。因为确实地，这就是这个典范证明，这个二次死亡的这一边，生理的死亡依旧留下某件可挑剔的地方。身体容许它自己在那里被理解，作为完全套陷于能指的功能里，跟它自己分开，并且见证恋尸癖者拥抱的东西，一个无法被理解的真理。

This relationship of the object to the signifier, before leaving
you, let us come back to the point that these reflections are
based on, namely to what Freud himself marked about the
identification of desire (in parentheses in the case of the
hysteric) to the desire of the Other. The hysteric shows us
clearly in effect the distance between this object and the
signifier, this distance which I defined by the lack of the
signifier but implying its relation to the signifier. In effect,
it is to this that the hysteric identifies herself when, Freud
tells us, it is the desire of the Other with regard to which she
orientates herself and which started her hunting.

这个客体跟能指的这个关系，在离开你们之前，让我们回到这一点，这些反思作为基础的这一点。换句话说，弗洛依德他自己标识的东西，关于欲望的认同，（在括弧里，在癔症者的这个个案），欲望认同于大他者的欲望。实际上，癔症者清楚地跟我们显示，处于客体与能指之间的这个距离。但是，它暗示它跟能指的关系。实际上，癔症者认同他自己跟这个能指的关系。弗洛依德告诉我们，这是大他者的欲望，关于这个欲望，她定向她自己，这个欲望触发她的追寻。

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

Identification 270

Identification 270
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 10

We know from our experience that nothing has any veritable weight
in the world except something which makes an allusion to this
object of which the Other, big 0 takes the place to give it a
(11) meaning.

根据我们的精神分析经验，我们知道，世界上没有一样东西具有可验证的价值，除了某件提到这个客体的东西。大他者，大写的O取代这个客体，为了给与它一个意义。

Every metaphor, including that of the symptom tries to make this
object emerge in its signification, but all the pullulation of
meanings that it may engender never manages to staunch what is
involved in this hole in terms of a central loss.

每个隐喻，包括症状的隐喻，尝试要让这个客体出现，在它的意义里。但是，为了让它产生的意义的所有的滋长，从来没有阻塞这个空洞里的牵涉的东西，用一个中央的丧失。

Here is what regulates the relationships of the subject with the
Other, 0, what regulates secretly but in a fashion which is
surely not less efficacious than this relationship of small o to
the imaginary reflection which covers and surmounts it. In other
words that on the road, the only one that is open to us to
rediscover the incidence of this little o, we encounter first of
all the mark of the occultation of the Other, under the same
desire.

在此就是规范主体跟大他者O的关系，秘密地规范的东西，用确实并不是那么没有效率的东西，比起小客体跟想像的反思的方式。这个想像的反思涵盖并且克服它。换句话说，在途中，开放给予我们的唯一的这个方式，为了重新发现这个小客体的意外，我们首先遭殃大他者的奥秘化的所有的标记，在相同的欲望之下。

Such in effect is the way: o can be approached along this way
which is that the Other, with a big 0, desires in the failing
subject, in the phantasy, the $ barred. This is why I taught you
that the fear of desire is experienced as equivalent to anxiety,
that anxiety is the fear of what the Other in himself desires of
the subject, this “in himself” founded precisely on the ignorance
of what is desired at the level of the Other. It is from the
side of the Other that the little o comes to light, not so much
as lack but as to be.

实际上，这个途径就是这样：大他者O能够被接近，沿着这个途径，大他者，大写字母的O，在这个失败的客体失望，在这个幻见里，这个被划杠的阉割主体$里。这就是为什么我教导你们，欲望的恐惧被经验到，作为跟焦虑相等。焦虑就是这个恐惧，大他者在他自身对于主体的欲望的恐惧。这个“在他自身”确实是以这个无知作为基础，在大他者的层次，被欲望的东西的无知。就是从大他者的这一边，小客体o豁然开朗，不是作为欠缺，而是作为生命实存。

This is why we come here to pose the question of its relationship
to the thing, not the sacred one, but what I described to you as
das Ding. You know that in leading you to this limit I did
nothing other than indicate to you that here the perspective is
inverted, this small i of small o which envelopes this access to
the object of castration is here the very image which creates an
obstacle in the mirror, or rather, in the way it happens in
obscure mirrors – one must always think of this obscurity every
time that in the ancient authors you see intervening a reference
to the mirror – something can appear beyond the image that the
clear mirror gives. It is to the image of the clear mirror that
there is hooked on this barrier which I called at the time that
of beauty. Moreover the revelation of little o beyond this
image, even if it appears under the most horrible form, will
always preserve its reflection.

这就是为什么我们来这里，提出它跟物象的关系的这个问题，不是这个神圣的关系，而是我跟你们描述，作为“物象”的东西。你们知道，当我引导你们到这个限制，我所做的实实在在就是跟你们指示，在此，这个观点被倒转起来。涵盖这个进入阉割的这个客体的小客体（o）的这个小的魅影理想的自我（i）。在此，这个意象创造一个镜像的阻碍，或者说，用它发生的方式，在模糊的镜像里。我们一定总是想到这个模糊，每次在古代的作者身上，你们看见某件东西介入一个指称到镜像里。某件东西能够出现，超越清楚镜子给予的这个意象。我在当时所谓的美的阻碍的这个阻碍，跟这个清楚的镜子的意象挂钩一块。而且，小客体的启示，超越这个意象，即使它出现在最恐怖的形式之下，它将总是保存它的反映。

And it is here that I would like to share with you the happiness
(12) that I had in encountering these thoughts in the writings of
someone whom I consider to be quite simply the poet of our
literature, who has certainly gone further than anyone in the
present or the past along the path of the realisation of the
phantasy. I am talking about Maurice Blanchot whose death
sentence was for me for a long time the surest confirmation of
what I was saying for a whole year in the seminar on Ethics about
the second death.

就在这里，为想要跟你们分享这个快乐，我拥有的快乐，当我遭遇这些思想，在某个人的著作里。我认为这个人就是我们的文学的诗人。他确实曾经比起目前或过去的其他人们更加深入，沿著幻见的实现的途径。为正在谈论莫瑞斯 布朗肖。他的死刑，长久以来对于我，就是最确实的证实，我一整年来正在说的东西，在精神分析伦理学的研讨班，关于二次死亡。

27.6.62 XXVI 11
I had not read the second version of his first work Thomas
1’Obscur. I think that none of you, after what I am going to
read you of it, will fail to test yourselves against such a small
volume. Something is encountered there which incarnates the
image of this object o, in connection with which I spoke about
horror; it is the term that Freud uses when he is dealing with
the Ratman. Here it is something about rats that is involved.

我还没有阅的他的第一本著作“黑暗托马”的第二版。我认为，你们每一个人，在我跟你们阅读它之后，将一定会测试你们自己，对抗如此小的一本书。某件东西被遭遇，它具体表现这个小客体o。关于这个小客体o，为谈论到恐惧。弗洛伊德使用这个术语，当他正在处理“鼠人”。在此，这是某件关于老鼠的东西被牵涉到。

Georges Bataille wrote a long essay which turns around the wellknown
central phantasy of Marcel Proust, which also concerns a
rat: Histoire de rat. But do I need to tell you that if Apollo
riddles the Greek army with the arrows of the plague, it is
because, as M Gregoire very well noted, if Aesclepius, as I
taught you a long time ago is a mole – not so long ago I
discovered the plan of a molehill in a tolos (?), a further one
that I visited recently – if then Aesclepius is a mole, Apollo is
a rat.

乔治 巴代尔写过一篇长的论文，环绕马塞尔 普洛斯托的这个著名的幻见，关于一只老鼠的幻见：老鼠的历史。但是，我需要告诉你们吗？假如阿波罗使用瘟疫的箭矢射倒希腊的军队，那是因为，如同格瑞果尔清楚注意到，假如阿科利皮斯是一只鼹鼠，如同我长久以前教导你们的，不久以前，我发现一只鼹鼠沙丘的计划—我最近拜访的更进一步的计划。假如阿科利皮斯是一只鼹鼠，那么阿波罗就是老鼠。

Here it is. I am anticipating, or more exactly I am taking
Thomas 1’Obscur a little earlier on – it is not by chance that he
is called that -:

这里就是。我正在预期，或更贴切地说，我稍早正在阅读“黑暗托马”—他被这样称呼，确实并非偶然–

“And in his room, those who entered, seeing his book always
open at the sames pages, thought he was pretending to read.
He read with an unsurpassable minuteness and attention. He
was aware of every sign of the situation that the male finds
himself in when the praying mantis is going to devour him.
They were looking at one another. The words, issuing from a
book took on there a mortal power, exercised on the look
which touched them a soft and peaceful attraction. Each one
of them, like a half-closed eye, allowed there to enter a
too lively gaze that in other circumstances it would not
have tolerated.

在他的房间，那些进来的人们，看见他的书总是打开，在相同的页数。人们认为他假装是在阅读。他阅读，钜细无遗而且专心一致。他知道这个情况的每个符号，男性发现他自己处于的情况，当匍匐的螳螂正要吞噬他。他们互相凝视。从一本书发出的那些字词，在那里，具有人的力量，在碰触他们的凝视眼光，发出一个柔软而平静的吸引力。他们每一位，都像一个半封闭的眼睛，容许一个过于活跃的凝视进入。假如是在其他的情况，它本来是无法容忍这样的凝视。

Thomas slipped along then towards these corridors which
he approached without defence until the moment he was
(13) glimpsed by the intimacy of the word. It was not yet
terrifying, it was on the contrary an almost agreeable
moment that he would have liked to prolong.

托马朝着这些走廊漫步过去，他没有防卫地接近这些走廊，直到他被这个字词的亲密瞥见。这个字词还没有让人害怕。相反地，那是一个几乎令人愉快的时刻。他本来很想要那个时刻延长下去。

The reader
joyously considered this little spark of life which he did
not doubt he had awoken. He saw himself with pleasure in
this eye which saw him; his pleasure itself became very
great, it became so great, so pitiless that he underwent it
with a sort of terror and that having raised himself up,
an intolerable moment, without receiving from his
interlocutor a sign of complicity, he perceived the whole
strangeness that there was in being observed by a word as
if by a living being.

读者快乐地思维到这个小小的生命的火花。他并没有怀疑他唤醒的生命的火花。他快乐地看见他自己，用看见他的这个眼光。他的快乐本身变成非常强烈，快乐变得如此强烈，如无情，以致于他经历这个快乐，带着某种的恐惧。已经将他自己提升起来，一个无法被容忍的时刻，没有从他的质问者接收到共犯的讯息。他感觉整个的陌生感。这种陌生感被观察到，被一个字词，好像被一个活生生的生命实体。

And not alone by a word, but by all
those which accompanied it and which in their turn contained
in themselves other words, like a succession of angels
opening out to infinity even to the very eye of the
absolute.”

不单是被一个字词，而且被所有的伴随这个字词的那些字词，它们轮流地在它们自身包含其他的字词，像是天使们的行列，展开朝向永恒，甚至朝向绝对创世主的眼神。

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

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

Identification 266

Identification 266
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 4

But we are dealing with a beginning, with a more simple kernel,
which I would like to depict for you, as I told you, by an
example. And I will not go looking for it very far, but in a
proverb which presents in the French tongue a particularity which
nevertheless does not spring to the eye, at least for French
speakers, the proverb is the following: “All that glitters is not
gold, tout ce qui brille n’est pas or”.

但是，我们正在处理一个开始，拥有一个更加简单的核心。我想要跟你们描述一下这个核心。如同我告诉你们的，用一个例子。我将不会前往远处寻找它，而是在法国语言里出现一个特殊性的格言。可是，这个特殊性并没有让眼睛突然看见。至少对于一位说法语的人而言，这个格言如下：「闪亮的东西未必都是黄金（外表不足凭）」。

In colloquial German for example, you must not believe that you
can be satisfied with crudely transcribing it: “alles was glanzt
ist keine Gold”. This would not be a good translation. I see
Melle Uberfreit nodding approval as she listens to me; she
approves of what I am saying: “nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

譬如，在口语的德语，你们一定不要相信，你们会满意于粗糙地铭记它:”alles was glanzt ist keine Gold”。这将不会是一个好的翻译。我看见吴伯瑞特女士点头同意，当她倾听我时。她同意我正在说的东西：”nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

(5) This may give greater satisfaction as regards its apparent
meaning, putting the accent on the alles, thanks to an
anticipation of the nicht which is not at all usual, which forces
the genius of the tongue and which, if you reflect on it, misses
the sense, because this is not the distinction that is involved.
I could use the Eulerian circles, the same ones that we used the
other day in connection with the relationship of the subject to
some case or other: all men are liars.

这可能给予更大的满足，关于它的表面的意义。它强调这个alles，由于这个nicht的预期根本就不寻常。它强迫语言的天才，假如你们反思它，这个nicht错过这个意涵。因为这并不是牵涉到的区别。我可以使用尤勒圆圈，我们前天使用的相同的圆圈，关于主体跟某个情况的这个关系：所有的人们都是说谎者。

Is it simply this that that signifies?
The fact is, to recover myself here, a
part of what glitters is in the circle
of gold and another part is not there.
Is that the meaning?

仅是这个关系在表达意涵吗？事实上，为了发现我自己在这里，一部分的闪亮的东西，在黄金的这个圆圈里。而另外一个部分则是并不在那里。那就是意义吗？

You must not believe that I am the first
among the logicians to have paused at
this structure and in truth, more than
one author who has occupied himself with
negation has paused in effect at this
problem, not at all so much from the
point of view of formal logic, which, as
you see, scarcely pauses at it except in
order to miscognise it from the point of
view of grammatical form, insisting on
the fact that the circuits are ordered in such a fashion that
there is precisely put in question the “goldness”, if I may
express myself in this way, the golden quality of what glitters.

你们一定不要相信，我是逻辑家们的第一位曾经停顿下来，针对这个结构。事实上，不仅一位作者曾经专注于探讨“否定”。他针对这个难题，实际上也停顿下来。原因根本不是因为正式逻辑的观点。如同你们看出，正式逻辑很少针对它停顿下来，除了为了误读它，从文法形式的观点。正是逻辑坚持这个事实：圆圈用这样一种形式规范秩序，以致于“黄金”确实受到质疑，请容我用这种方式表达，闪亮的东西的黄金的特质受到质疑。

The authenticity of the gold goes then in the direction of a
radical putting into question; gold here is symbolic of what
makes glitter, and if I can put it this way in order to make
myself understood, I stress, what gives an object the fascinating
colour of desire.

黄金的真诚性因此前进，朝著强烈质疑的方向。在此的黄金象征发出闪亮的东西。假如我能够用这种方式表达它，为了让我自己被人理解。我强调，给予客体具有欲望的令人著迷的色彩的东西。

What is important in a formula like this, if I can express myself
in this way – forgive me the play on words – is the point d’ORage
[the eye of the storm, the golden point] around which there turns
the question of what makes something glitter, and in a word, the
question of how much truth there is in this glittering.

在像这样的公式，重要的事情是，假如我能够用这种方式表达我自己—请你们原谅我玩弄文字—颱风眼（暴风雨的眼睛，黄金点）。环绕这个点旋转的东西，就是让某件东西闪亮的东西。总之，就是在这个闪亮里存在多少真理的问题。

27.6.62 XXVI 5
And, starting from there, of course no gold is going to be true
enough to guarantee this point around which there subsists the
function of desire.

从那里开始，当然，并没有黄金将会足够真实地保证这个点。环绕这个点，欲望的功能存在那里。

Such is the radical characteristic of this sort of object that I
call small o: it is the object put into question, in so far as
one can say that it is what interests us, us analysts, as what
(6) interests someone listening to any teaching. It is not for
nothing that I saw nostalgia arising on the lips of the person
who wanted to say: “Why does he not say”, as someone put it, “the
truth about the truth?”.

这种个客体的强烈的特性是这样，以致于我称它为小客体：就是这个小客体受到质疑。因为我们能够说，它就是我们作为精神分析家感到興趣的东西。这并非白费力气，我看见这个人的嘴唇升起怀旧的情感。他想要说：「为什么他不说出？」如同某人表达，「说出关于真理的真理？」

It is truly a great tribute to a
discourse which takes place every week in this senseless position
of being here behind a table in front of you articulating this
sort of account which one is quite content normally to see always
avoiding such a question.

这确实是让人受宠若惊，对于每周举行的这个辞说，在这个无足轻重的位置，在你们面前的桌子背后，表达这种的描述。正常来说，我们相当满意于看见总是逃避这样的问题。

If it were not a matter of the analytic object, namely the object
of desire, raising such a question would never even be dreamt of,
except on the lips of a Huron who might imagine that when one
comes to the University it is in order to know “the truth about
the truth”. Now this is what is involved in analysis. One
could say that it is the mirage of this that we are, often in
spite of ourselves, embarrassed to polish up in the spirit of
those to whom we address ourselves. We find ourselves, I am
really saying, embarrassed, like the poison of the proverbial
apple; and nevertheless it is really what is there, this is what
we are dealing with, it is on it, in so far as it is at the heart
of the structure, it is on it that there is brought to bear what
we call castration.

若问题并不是精神分析的客体，也就是欲望的客体，那么提出这样一个问题就不会被梦想。除了出之于一位胡伦的大学生，他可能想像，当一个人进入大学，那就是为了知道“关于真理的真理”。现在，这就是精神分析牵涉的东西。我们能够说，就是这个关于真理的真理的幻景，我们经常身不由已地，尴尬地加油添醋，当我们意气风风地跟人侃侃而谈。我确实是说，我们发现自己感到尴尬，就像谚语所说的有毒的蘋果。可是，这确实存在那里的东西。这就是我们正在处理的东西。就在它上面。因为它将是这个结构的核心。我们所谓的阉割，就是跟它息息相关。

It is precisely in so far as there is a hard, suggestive
structure which turns around a kind of cut – the one which I
represented for you in this way – that there is at the heart of
phantastical identification this organizing object, this inducing
object. And it could not be otherwise as regards the whole
world of anxiety with which we have to deal, which is the object
defined as object of castration.

确实是因为有一个困难的暗示的结构，环绕一种的切割旋转。我用这个方式跟你们代表的这个结构。在幻影的认同的核心，这个组织的客体，这个诱拐的客体。它不可能是别的东西，关于焦虑的这整个的世界。我们必须处理的焦虑的世界。那是被定义为阉割的客体的东西。

Here I want to remind you about the surface from which there is
borrowed this part which I described for you the last time as
enucleated, which gives the very image of the circle in terms of
which this object can be defined. I want to image for you what
the property of this circle with the double circuit is. Magnify
progressively the two lobes of this cut so that they both pass,
as I might say, behind the anterior surface. There is nothing
new about that, it is the way I already demonstrated to you of
displacing this cut. One has only in effect to displace it and
one makes it appear very easily that the complementary part of
the surface, with respect to what is isolated around what one can
call the two central leaves, or the two petals, to make them
connect up with one another – the inaugural metaphor of the cover
of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ book, with this very image – what remains
is an apparent lotus-surface.

在此，我想要提醒你们，关于这个表面。我上次跟你们描述的这个部分，就是从这个表面借用过来，作为是被表达的东西。它给予圆圈的这个意象。用这个圆圈的术语，这个客体被定义。我想要跟你们描绘，具有双重循环的这个圆圈的特性是什么。请你们将这个切割的两个肺页逐渐放大，这样，它们两个都会通过前面的表面的背后，我不妨说。关于这一点并不是什么新东西。那就是我已经跟你们证明的方式，关于取代这个切割。我们实际上只必须要取代它，然后我们很容易让它出现，这样，这个表面的辅助的部分，关于被孤立出来的东西，环绕我们所谓的两个中央的叶片，或两个花瓣，为了让它们互相联接。这是克劳德 李维斯陀的书的封面的开始的隐喻。剩余下来的东西，就是外表的莲花的表面。

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

Identification 264

Identification 264
认同
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
Seminar 26: Wednesday 27 June 1962
Today in the context of the theoretical teaching that we have
succeeded this year in going through together, I am indicating to
you that I have to choose my axis, as I might say, and I will put
the accent on the support-formula of the third type of
identification which I noted for you a long time ago, since the
time of the graph, under the form of $ which you now know how to
read as cut of big i t o [or: cut of big 0]. Not what is
implicit, nodal in at namely the$, the point thanks to which the
eversion from one into the other can take place, thanks to which
the two terms present themselves as identical, like the back and
the front, not just any back whatsoever and not just any front.

今天，在理论教学的文本，我们今年成功地在一块经历过的文本。我正在跟你们指示，我必须选择我的轴心，不妨这样说。我将强调第三种类的认同的支持-公式。很久以前，我就跟你们提到，自从这个图形的时刻，在被划杠的$的形式下，你们现在知道如何阅读它，作为是大他者O的切割。倒不是所被暗示的东西，在这个点的节点，也就是，这个被划杠的$。由于这个点，从一个点到另外一个点的翻转会发生。由于这个点，这两个术语呈现它们自己作为认同，就像背面与前面。不仅是任何背面，也不仅是任何前面。

Otherwise I would not have needed to show you at the appropriate
place what it is when it represents the double cut on this
particular surface whose topology I tried to show you in the
cross-cap.

否则我本来没有这个需要跟你们显示那是什么东西，在这个适当的地方，当它代表这个双重的切割时，在这个特殊的表面。这个表面的拓扑图形，我尝试跟你们显示，在交叉帽。

This point designated here is the point (jj thanks to which the
circle indicated by this little cut can be for us the mental
schema of an original identification; this point – I believe I
have sufficiently indicated its structural function in my last
discourses – can, up to a certain point harbour for you too many
satisfying properties; here is this phallus with this magical
function which is indeed the one that our discourse for a long
time now implies in it. It would be a little too easy to find
(2) our final resting point here.

在此被设计的这个点是这个点（由于这个点，用这个小的切割指示的这个圆圈，对于我们而言，有时是原初的认同的精神的基模，这个点—我相信我已经充分地指示它的结构的功能，在我前几次的辞说—直到某个时刻，这个点能够替你们怀抱太多的令人满意的属性。在此是这个阳具，具有这个魔术的功能。这个功能确实就是我们的辞说长久以来在它里面暗示的这个功能。要在这里找到一个休息的点，将是稍微过于容易。

This is why today I want to put the accent on this point, namely
on the function of o, the small o in so far as it is at the same
time properly speaking what can allow there to be conceived the
function of the object in analytic theory, namely this object
which in psychical dynamics is what structures for us the whole
progressive-regressive process, what we have to deal with in our
relationships of the subject to his psychical reality, but is
also our object, the object of analytic science.

这就是为什么今天我想要强调这一点。也就是，强调O的这个功能。因为它有时恰当地说，就是能够让精神分析理论里的客体的功能被构想的东西。换句话说，这个客体在心灵动力学里，是替我们架构整个的进展与退行的过程。我们必须处理的东西，在我们的主体跟他的心灵的现实的关系。但是它也是我们的客体，精神分析科学的客体。

27.6.62 XXVI 2
And what I want to put in the foreground, in what I am going to
say to you about it today, is that if we want to qualify this
object in a properly logical perspective, I stress: logical
(logicisante), we have nothing better to say about it except the
fact that it is the object of castration. I mean by this, I
specify, compared to the other functions of the object defined up
to now. Because if one can say that the object in the world, in
so far as it is discerned there, is the object of a privation,
one can also say that the object is the object of frustration.
And I am going to try to show you precisely how this object of
ours is distinguished from it.

我想要放置在前景的东西，在我今天想要跟你们谈论关于它的东西是，假如我们想要给予这个东西的品质，用合宜到逻辑的观点，我强调：逻辑，我们没有更好的东西来说它，除了就是这个事实：它是阉割的客体。我指的是，我指明的这个客体，跟迄今被定义的这个客体的其他功能比较起来。因为假如我们能够说，在世界的这个客体，因为它在那里被觉察，那是一个被剥夺的客体，我们也能够说，这个客体就是挫折的客体。我将要尝试跟你们确实显示，我们的这个客体如何被区别跟它的不同。

It is quite clear that if this object is an object of logic it
cannot have been up to now completely absent, undisclosed in all
the attempts made to articulate as such what is called logic.
Logic has not always existed in the same form. The one which
perfectly satisfied, fulfilled us up to Kant, who was still
indulgent towards it, this formal logic, born one day from the
pen of Aristotle exercised this captivation, this fascination
until people devoted themselves, in the last century, to what
could be revised in it in detail. It was noticed for example
that many things were missing in it as regards quantification.
It is certainly not what was added to it which is interesting,
but the way it held us. And many of the things that people
thought should be added to it only go in a singularly sterile
direction.

显而易见地，假如这个客体就是逻辑的客体，它不可能迄今完全是缺席，没有被泄露出来，当我们尽一切企图要表达所谓的逻辑的自身。逻辑未必都以相同的形式存在。直到康德，让我们完全满足，完全满意的这个逻辑。康德依旧留恋不忘地朝向它，这个正式的逻辑。这个正式逻辑有一天从亚里斯多德的笔端诞生出来。这个正式逻辑运用这个迷惑，这个著迷，直到上个世纪，人们专注地探讨在它里面能够详细被修正的东西。譬如，有人注意到，关于数量化，在正式逻辑里，缺失很多的东西。耐人寻味的，这确实并不是被增添给它的东西，而是它拥有我们的方式。人们认为应该被增添给它的许多东西，仅是朝着非常贫瘠的方向前进。

In fact, it is in the reflection that analysis imposes on us as
regards these powers of Aristotelian logic which were so
(3) insistent for such a long time, that there can be presented
for us the interest of logic. The gaze of someone who strips
formal Aristotelian logic of all its so fascinating details must
– I repeat to you – abstract itself from the decisive things it
has contributed in terms of a cut in the mental world in order
even to understand truly what preceded it, for example the
possibility of the whole Platonic dialectic which is always read
as if formal logic were already there, which completely distorts
our reading of it. But let us leave this.

事实上，精神分析赋加在我们身上的反思，关于亚里斯多德的逻辑的这些力量。长久时间以来，这些力量是如此坚持，以致对于我们而言，逻辑的興趣能够被呈现。某个人将正式的亚里斯多德的逻辑剥夺掉它所有如此令人着迷的细节—我跟你重复一遍—这个人的凝视必须抽离出来，从它曾经贡献的这些决定性的事情。用精神世界的切割的术语，甚至为了真实地理解早先于它存在的东西。譬如，整个柏拉图的辩证法的可能性。整个柏拉图的辩证法总是被阅读，好像正式的逻辑已经在那里。它完全地扭曲我们对于它的阅读。但是让我们离开这个。

The Aristotelian object – because this indeed is what it must be
called – has precisely, as I might say, the property of being
able to have properties which belong to it alone: its attributes.
And it is these that define classes.

亚里斯多德的客体—因为这确实是它必须被称呼的东西—我不妨说，亚里斯多德的客体确实拥有这个属性：它能够拥有仅是属于它的这些属性：它的特性。就是这些属性定义分类。

Now this is a construction which he only owes to a confusion of
what I would call – for want of anything better – the categories
of being and having. This would deserve long developments and,
in order to get you to take this step I am obliged to have
recourse to an example which will serve as a support.

现在，这是一个建构，亚里斯多德仅是将这个结构归咎于存在与拥有的范畴的混淆。我这样称呼，因为欠缺更贴切的表达。这将值得长期的发展。为了让你们採取这个步骤，我不得不诉诸于一个例子，充当支持。

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