Archive for the ‘精神分析对象’ Category

Object 15

January 16, 2012

Object 15

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965
J Lacan’s o-object, its logic, and Freudian theory
(convergences and interrogations)
By André Green

To speak about the object of psychoanalysis immediately gives rise to a question. It
leads us to question ourselves as to whether one is going to treat the object of
psychoanalysis in the sense that one speaks about the object of a science – what the
approach and the progress of the science is aiming at – or whether one is going to
speak about the status of the object as psychoanalysis conceives of it. The surprising
thing will be to show here that these two senses are closely linked and interdependent.


Littre points out that at the word “subject” the Académie says: natural bodies are the
subject of physics. And at the word “object”, it says again: natural bodies are the
object of physics. Far be it from us to pick out here a contradictory reduplication or
one too easily reducible. Nor will we join brandishing this example, to the chorus of
those who denounce in the separation of the subject and the object the cause of all the
theoretical impasses for which traditional thought is rendered responsible.


Encountering at the beginning the linked fate of the subject and the object is not to
affirm either their confusion or their independence. It is to calculate that we are going
to have to face up to the confrontations of identity and difference, of conjunction and
disjunction, of suturing and cutting. We will then have to ask ourselves if the object
of psychoanalysis – I am speaking now about what it is aiming at – can be content with
this coupled limitation to which many contemporary disciplines, and indeed the most
advanced, limit themselves.



1、 雅克、拉康的目标:迅速提醒

To examine the role of the o-object in the theory of Jacques Lacan will help us kill
two birds with the one stone. It will lead us – this at least is our project – to specify its
content in the conceptual framework which is proper to him on the one hand, and on
the other hand to mark the limits of agreement of this thinking – and no doubt of all
psychoanalytic thinking – with modern structuralism.


A – The (o), mediation between the subject to the Other
The (o) – I am not saying yet the o-object – is present in Lacan‟s oldest graph when he
starts from the theorisation proposed in The mirror stage (1936-1949). (o) can be
understood then in its relationship to o‟ (which will have the closest relationships with the future i(o) namely the specular image) as an element of the indispensable
mediation which unites the subject to the Other.

一、 主体与客体之间的仲介

这个括弧里的对象,(我甚至还没有说这个客体),它出现在拉康最早的欲望图形,当他从1936到1949年的「镜象阶段」所建议的理论开始。这个括弧内的对象能够被了解,处于跟客体的关系。(它跟未来的I (0),也就是理想魅影的意象息息相关),作为连接主体与客体的不可免除的仲介的一种要素。

It is clear that this situation of the mirror stage – which is less important to date as a stage than to designate as a structuring situation – can only be understood if one specifies that it is not psychology that is in question here (whether we are talking about Preyer or Wallon) but psychoanalysis.

显而易见的,镜像阶段的这个情况,其重要性不在于定位为一个阶段,而在于指明为一个结构的情况。它能够被了解,仅是当我们指明,在此受到质疑的并不是心理学 (无论我们谈论的是普瑞伊或瓦伦的心理学),而是精神分析学。

Psychoanalysis which gives to the child which has emerged from his
mother a meaning which weighs on all his development: namely that he is the
substitute for the penis of which the mother is deprived and only accedes to his status
of subject by taking his place there where he is lacking to the mother on whom he
depends. This substitute is the locus and the bond of exchange between the mother
and the father who even though he has a penis cannot for all that create it (because he
has it).


The relationship (o) to i(o) is going to reduplicate the relationship that we have just


B – The (o), mediation between the subject to the ego ideal

There then comes the quadrangle called the schema R. Here again there are opposed
the couple of tensions between the systems of desires (iM) and the system of
identifications (eI). The (o) is inscribed on the line (iM) which starting from the
subject S and going towards the primordial object M (the mother) is constituted
through the figures of the imaginary other.

然后就是所谓的R基模的四个角度。在此再一次,在欲望的系统iM与认同eI的系统之间的两种紧张的对立。括弧的这个客体,被铭记着欲望的系统iM的这条线,它从这个主体S开始,然后朝向原初的客体M (母亲),它通过想象界的大他者的这些人物,而形成。

On the contrary the o‟is inscribed on the line which goes from the subject S towards the primordial object M (the mother) by way of the figures of the imaginary other. On the other hand o‟ is inscribed on the line which goes from the subject to the ego ideal through the specular forms of the ego.

相反地,这个客体0被铭记着这条线,从主体S开始,朝鲜原初的客体M (母亲),凭借想象界的大他者的人物。在另一方面,这个客体被铭记着这条线,从主体到自我理想,通过自我的理想魅影的形式。

It can be seen how the quadrangle derives from the Z by joining the points which in the first graph are only reached by a round-about journey. One might point out here that in the field of the imaginary the two directions of the subject go either towards the object, or towards the ideal. One also knows that in Freudian thought this orientation is closely dependent on narcissism.


One notes then that the Other which has come to the locus of the Name of the Father, situated only in the field of the symbolic, at the opposite pole to the subject here identified to the phallus, can only be reached by the two paths that we have just described above, the object or the narcissistic, but never in a direct fashion.


The field of the real is comprised in the tension of two couples eI x iM whose meaning we have specified. But it is only in the symbolic field that there appears the third term which is indispensable for the structuring of the process.

实在界的领域被包含在认同eI 与母亲的系统iM这两对的紧张里。它们的意义,我们已经指明。但是仅有在符号界的领域,这第三个术语才会出现。这第三个术语在过程的结构里是不可免除的。

[Foot note
1. It is not out of season to make two remarks here:
a – In French psychoanalytic work the notion of object relations has developed a good
deal (Bouvet) imported from Anglo-Saxon authors (M Klein especially, after
Abraham). Lacan is opposed to it underlining the absence of any references to
elements of mediation in these conceptions. Especially – which amounts to the same
thing perhaps – he will condemn this view-point in so far as it ends up at a Real-
Imaginary opposition which crushes the Symbolic.
b- The opposition between the ideal ego and the ego ideal (Nunberg-Lagache) serves
as a platform for the theoretical developments of Lacan which are inserted in the
perspective of the relationship to the Other. ]

1. 在法国,客体关系的观念的精神分析研究,曾经高度发展,借助从英国作者的输入。(特别是克莱因,及先前的阿伯拉罕)。拉康则是强调这些观念仲介的指称要素的欠缺,来跟客体关系的观念对立。特别是,这个客体关系的观念相等于是这个相同的东西。他将谴责这个观点,因为它的结果处于一个实在界与想象界的对立,而压垮符号界。
2. 理想自我与自我理想的对立,充当一个平台,作为拉康的理论的发展。这些发展被插入在跟大他者的关系的观点。


Object 14

January 15, 2012

Object 14

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

And, nevertheless, what I have just said to you is that the stroke drawn here in black,
which is a simple stroke, a closed edge, of the same type as the one the drawing of Jiu
Oun reduced, as I told you, entirely to this little portion. So then, what is the riddle?


I think that you must remember still what I told you earlier, namely, that the cut itself
is the Moebius strip. As you can see in this second outline that I made on the same
figure, next to it, a figure which is schematised in something, a bladder in which I am
trying to help you to intuit what is involved in the projective plane, if you separate the
edges, as I might say, which result from the cut here traced in black, you obtain a gap
which is constructed here like a Moebius strip.


(28) The cut itself has the structure of the surface called Moebius strip. Here you see
it pictured by a double stroke of the scissors that you can also do, in which you would
effectively cut the total figure of the projective plane, or of the cross-cap as I called it,
in two parts: one Moebius strip on the one hand, here it is supposed to be cut, all on its own, and on the other hand a remainder which is what plays the same function of hole in its primitive shape, namely, of the hole that is obtained on a spherical surface.


This is fundamental to consider and you have to see in it another figure in the
schematised shape, and one more properly topological which is the following one
whose complement I have written on the blackboard where I think you can see it.


Now, the way in which the first hole, the spherical hole, the one that I called
concentric, is sutured, topology reveals to us that nothing is less concentric than this
form of centre contiguous with the function of the first flap.


Because in order to close the hole on the sphere, it is enough to have a simple cut which connects the two pieces in the way, simply, in which a dressmaker would darn something for you.


Having established the cut, if you take things in the inverse sense for the Moebius strip implies an order, and it is really here that we have our third dimension which is what justifies us having introduced earlier a (29) false third in order to make you sense the weight of these figures.


This dimension of order, in other words, representing a certain temporal base, implies
that to realise this hole, this second hole whose topological properties I am explaining
to you, there is an order necessary which is a diametrical order, diametrical, that is
apparently spatial, founded in accordance with the median stroke, gives you the
figured support in which properly speaking it can be read that this sort of cut is
precisely the one that we were waiting for, namely, it can only be realised by having at the same time to be divided, in other words, if it is not in an intuitive and visual
fashion but in a mental fashion that you try to realise what is involved starting from
the moment that you think that the A, the point A on the circle is identical to the point A that is diametrically opposite it, which is the very definition which was introduced in a quite different context, in metrical geometry by Desargues, in other words, the projective plane, and God knows that Desargues, in writing it, himself underlined how paradoxical, bewildering, even crazy such a conception was which proves very well that the mathematicians are themselves well able to imagine the points of transgression, of going beyond the limit, in connection with the setting up of one or other structural category.


If they did forget it, moreover, there would always be their colleagues to remind them by telling them that they understand nothing about what (30) they were saying, something which happens at every turn, and especially what happened to Desargues when the walls of Lyon were covered with posters in connection with things that as you see were very exciting. What a lovely time! What a marvellous epoch!


The A and the A are the same …………………….. what does that mean if not that, even if
we consider this as the hole, the conjunction of the edges cannot be carried out except
by dividing this hole, by managing to pass it in the movement, as one might say, of its


We find here the model of what is involved in the subject in so far as it is determined
by a cut. It ought necessarily to be presented as divided in the very structure.


I was not able, of course, to take any further today the point that I wanted you to arrive at. You should simply know that in referring ourselves to two other topological
structures. which are respectively the Klein bottle, in so far as I already showed you
that it is made up, composed, by the sewing together of two Moebius strips. As you
will see, this is not at all enough to allow us to deduce its properties by simple


On the other hand, the torus, which is still another structure. We can, starting from
these primary definitions about the $ conceive of what use there could be to us these
two other (31) structures of the Klein bottle and the torus in establishing fundamental
relationships which will allow us to situate with a rigour which has never been
obtained up to now in ordinary language, in so far as ordinary language ends up with
an entification of the subject which is the veritable knot and key to the problem.


Every time that we speak about something which is called the subject we make a
“one” of it. Now what it is a matter of conceiving, is precisely the following, it is that
the name of the subject is the following. The one to designate it is missing. What
replaces it? What comes to fulfil the function of this “one”?


Several things, undoubtedly, but if you only see several very different things, the o-object on the one hand, for example, the proper name on the other fulfilling the same function, it is quite clear that you can understand nothing either about their distinction – for when you see that they fulfil the same function one believes that it is the same thing – or about the very fact that they fulfil the same function.


It is a matter of knowing where there is situated, where there is articulated this $, the
divided subject as such. The torus on the one hand, a figure so exemplary that already
in the year of my seminar on identification that, except for the fresh ears who came
that year, nobody listened to what I was in the process of saying, because people had
other worries.


(32) In my seminar on identification, I showed the exemplary value that the torus has
in linking, in a structurally dogmatisable way, the function of demand and that of
desire properly speaking at the level of the Freudian discovery, namely, of the neurotic and of the unconscious. You will see its exemplary functioning.


………… what can be structured of the subject is entirely linked, structurally, to the
possibility of the transformation, of the passage of the structure of the torus into that
of the Moebius strip, not the true of the subject, but the Moebius strip in so far as it is
divided, in so far as once it is cut through the middle it is no longer a Moebius strip. It
is something which has two faces, a front and a back, which roll up upon themselves
in a funny way, but which, as in the model that I brought you today to enable you to
see it in a tangible fashion, becomes applicable onto this thing which is usually called
a ring and which is a torus.


This structural connection allows there to be articulated in a particularly clear and
obvious fashion certain relationships which ought to be fundamental for the definition
of the relationship of the subject of demand and of desire. In the same way it is only
at the level of the Klein bottle that there can be defined the original relationship that is
established starting from the moment there enters into function in language the word
and the (33) dimension of truth. The non-symmetrical conjunction of the subject
and of the locus of the Other is what we can illustrate, thanks to the Klein bottle.
With these simple indications, I will leave you and give you an appointment for the
first Wednesday in January.


For the fourth Wednesday of this month, I would urgently ask anyone in this assembly who in whatever manner is interested in the progress of what I am trying to make advance here, to kindly, whatever may be the fate that I may reserve for the
information sheet that he will have to fill up, namely, that whether I invite or do not
invite him to the fourth Wednesday to consider that it is not because of his merits or
his lack of merit that he is invited or not.


People are or are not invited for reasons which are the same as those that Plato defined for the functioning of politics, namely, which have nothing to do with politics but which are rather to be considered as those of the tapestry worker.


If I have to have the threads of one colour and different threads of another colour to produce a certain weave on that day, let me choose the threads. That I should do that this year as an experiment on each of the fourth Wednesdays is something that the totality of my listeners and all the more so in that they are the most faithful and all the more so that they may be really interested in what I am saying, ought in a way to leave to my discretion.


(34) You will allow me then for the next fourth Wednesday to invite whomever I
please in order that the subject, the given subject of discussion, of dialogue which will
function on that day should be carried out in the best conditions, namely, among
interlocutors expressly chosen by me. Those who are not part of these on that
Wednesday should in no way take offence.



Object 13

January 15, 2012

Object 13

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

(23) I will do it all the more easily because, in truth, I believe ……………………… if I
can believe the stylistic remarks which were brought to me by this great reader of
mathematical material who asked me to consult the text of Desargues, who was a
much greater stylist than Pascal, in order to see what we know very definitely from
other sources, the importance that the references to Desargues may have had for
Pascal, which would change the whole sense of his work.


In any case, it is clear that on this concentric, spherical structure, if the circle can be
everywhere, undoubtedly the centre is nowhere. In other words, it is obvious to
anyone that there is no centre for the surface of a sphere. This is the inconsistency of
Pascal‟s intuition.


And now the problem is posed for us of whether there cannot be, in order to explain
ourselves in terms not of images but perhaps of ideas, and which give you an idea of
where I am guiding you from, if at the outside of what I very intentionally called the
circle, and not the circumference, the circle means what you would ordinarily call in
geometry circumference, what one usually calls circle I will call disc or flap (lambeau), like earlier.


What must there be on the outside in order to structure the subject, in other words, in (24) order that the cut from which there results the fall of the o-object should make appear, on something which was completely closed up to then and where then, nothing could appear in order to make appear …………………….. in what we require for the constitution of the subject, the subject as fundamentally divided.


It is easy to make this appear, for it is enough for you to look at the way in which this circle is arranged, the way that I have retraced it, in order to see that if you conceive of this outline as empty, as I taught you to read this one as empty, it becomes very simply, and this is obvious, I think all the same that I have spoken to you sufficiently up to now about the Moebius strip for you to recognise it, it is the mounting, the framework, what allows you to see sustained and immediately intuitable, a Moebius strip.


You see it here. Join, as I might say, with a thread, each of its edges. You will see it
being reversed and see being stitched at the level of the back what was at first its front.


The Moebius strip has numerous properties. There is one major, capital one that I
have, I think, sufficiently represented in the preceding years, even to the extent of
having a pair of scissors here myself, I demonstrated to you, namely, that a Moebius
strip has no surface, (25) that it is a pure edge.


Not only is there only a single edge to this surface of the Moebius strip, but if I split it in the middle there is no longer a Moebius strip, for it is the stroke of my cut, it is the property of division which establishes the Moebius strip.


You can extract from the Moebius strip as many little fragments as you wish, there will always be a Moebius strip as long as some of the strip remains, but it will still not be the strip that you hold. The Moebius strip is a surface such that the cut which is traced in its centre is itself the Moebius strip.


The Moebius strip in its essence is the cut itself. This is how the Moebius strip can be
for us the structural support of the constitution of the subject as divisible. I am going
to put forward here something that is strictly speaking incorrect from the point of view of topology.


Nevertheless, this is not going to worry us for I am caught between explaining something to you in an incorrect fashion or not explaining it to you at all;
here we have a tangible example of one of these subjective impasses which are
precisely what we base ourselves on.


Therefore I advance, having sufficiently warned you that in strict topological doctrine
this is incorrect. You can remark that my Moebius strip – I am speaking about the one
which is drawn on the mounting of this o-object, this mounting, as I told you, is
exactly a (26 ) spherical flap which is in no way distinguished from what I
demonstrated earlier in connection with the hole of Jiu Oun. For it to serve as a
mounting for a Moebius strip, the fact is that a Moebius strip radically changes its
nature as a flap or little portion by soldering itself to it.


What is involved is a text, tissue, coherence of a fabric, of something which is of such
a kind that having made in it the trace of a certain cut, two distinct heterogeneous
elements appear, one of which is a Moebius strip and the other is this flap equivalent
to any other sphere.


Let us foment this Moebius strip in our imagination, it will come in this line necessarily (if the thing is plunged into three dimensions, this is my incorrectness), but it is an incorrectness which is not enough to set aside the problem of this fact that something which is indicated in the three dimensions by a re-crossing, an intersection which finally gives to the total figure of what is commonly called a sphere topped by a crossed bonnet or a cross-cap which gives what is drawn in red here, namely, what you can always imagine, of course in an incorrect fashion, plunged into the third dimension, as having at the bottom, and at the level of this base, of this chiasma, of this intersection, having the same cut.

让我们在我们的想象里,激起这个莫比斯环带。它将必然沿着这条脉络而来 ( 假如这个东西被投入到三个维度,这就是我的不正确)。但是这一种不正确并不足以将这个事实的问题搁置一旁。在这个三个维度,以一种重新交会指示的某件东西,这一种交会最后给予共同所谓的球形的整个图形,它的顶端是一个交会的软帽,或是两个维度的软帽。它给予在此用红色绘的图形。换句话说,你们总是能够想象,当然,以一个不正确的方式,被投入三个维度里。作为在这两个部分交会的这个底端,在这个基部的层次,拥有相同的切割。

(27) Every cut which goes to the level of what, schematically, is represented as this
line of crossing over, every closed cut which passes by this crossing-over, is
something which dissipates, as I might put it, instantly the whole structure of the
cross-cap, the chapeau croisé or again, the projective plane – as against the sphere
which does not lose its fundamental concentric structure as regards with any cut or
closed edge that you may describe on its surface. Here the cut introduces an essential
change, namely, the apparition of a Moebius strip and, on the other hand, this flap or
little portion.

从两个部分的交会而言,每个切割都到达这个交会线所代表的东西。每个封闭的切割,经由这个交会通过,它是某件扩散两个维度软帽的整个结构的东西。我不妨说,「chapeau croisé」,这个投射到层面。作为跟这个球形的对照。这个球形并没有丧失它的基本的同心圆的结构,关于任何的切割,或是封闭的边缘,你们在它的表面可能描述的。在此,这个切割介绍一个基本的改变。换句话说,一个莫比斯环带的魅影。在另一方面,这个振动翼或是这个小部分。


Object 12

January 14, 2012

Object 12

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

(19) In the place where, perhaps, people still write on a sheet of paper and where there is no need to replace it by cubes, it has still not vacillated. There must then be
something here as regards which I am not in the process of saying that it must be
concluded that the real has only two dimensions.


I undoubtedly think that the foundations of the transcendental aesthetic are to be taken up again, that the bringing into play, even if only for probative purposes, of a two dimensional topology for what concerns the subject, would in any case already have this reassuring advantage, if we continued to believe mordicus in our three dimensions which, in effect, we have many reasons for marking our attachment to, because this is where we breath.


This would at least have the reassuring advantage of explaining to us the way in which what concerns the subject belongs to the category of the impossible. And that everything that comes to us through it, through the real, is inscribed first of all in the register of the impossible, of the realised impossible.


The real, in which there is carved out the pattern of the subjective cut, is this real that we know well because we find it reversed in a way in our language every time that we really want to circumscribe what is involved in the real, the real is always the impossible.


Let us take up again then our sheet of paper. (20) We do not know what our sheet of paper is. We know what the cut is and that the one who has traced out this cut is suspended on its effect. “In three thousand years, how many men will know?”.


It would be necessary to know what condition a sheet of paper must fulfil, what is
called in topology a surface, there where we have made holes, in order that this hole
should be a cause, namely, has changed something.


Note that for what we are trying to grasp in what is involved about the hole, we are
not going to suppose another one. This one is enough for us. If this hole has had as
an effect to make fall a shoot, a fragment, well then it is necessary that what remains
is not the same thing, because if it is the same thing, it is exactly what is called a hole
or a sword-thrust in the water.


Well then if we trust the most accessible, the most familiar, the most fundamental
intuitive support, which it is not a matter moreover of deprecating either in terms of its historical interest or its real importance, namely a sphere – I apologise here to the
mathematicians – it is to intuition that I am appealing here because we only have a
surface into which one cuts and that I do not have to appeal to something which is
plunged, precisely into three dimensional space, namely, ………….


(21) What I simply mean in asking you to evoke a sphere, is to think that what
remains around the circle has no other edge. You can intuit this in the present state of
things only in the shape of a sphere, a sphere with a hole. If you reflect on what a
sphere with a hole is, it is exactly the same thing as the lid that you have just dropped.
The sphere has the same structure.


The fall that is in question in this fundamental drawing has no other effect than to
make re-emerge in the same place what has just been ablated. This does not allow us
in any circumstance to imagine something which is structural with respect to the
subject which interests us, is structural.


Since I must advance, I will only make a rapid allusion to the fact that Mr Brouwer, a
considerable personality in the modern development of mathematics, demonstrated
this theorem topologically, which, topologically, is the only one to give us the true
foundation of the notion of centre, a topological homology.


There are two figures, whatever they may be, provided they have an edge, can, by a distortion of this edge be proved to be homeomorphic. In other words if you take a square, it is topologically the same thing as this circle because you have only to blow, if I can express myself in this way, inside the (22) square and it will swell up to be a circle.


And, inversely, you give some hammer blows to this circle, to this two-dimensional circle, you give a two dimensional blow of a hammer also and it will become a square. It has been proved that this transformation, however it may be carried out, leaves at least one fixed point.


Where? A more astute thing that is less easy to see immediately – even though already
the first thing is not so easy – or an odd number of fixed points. I shall not go any
further into this.


I want simply to tell you that at this level of the structure of the surface, the surface is,
as one might say concentric. Even if we go by the outside, I mean intuitively, to see
what is connected up at the level of this edge, what is involved is a concentric


I said a long time ago, I am still more inclined to say it, but nevertheless I will not say
why, that Pascal was a very bad metaphysician. This “world of two infinities” , this
literary fragment which has been giving us a headache almost since we were born,
appears to me to be the most out of date thing that one could imagine. This other anti-
Aristotelian topos, where the centre is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere,
appears to me to be the most inexact thing possible, except for the fact that I will
easily extract from it Pascal‟s whole theory of anxiety.



Object 11

January 13, 2012

Object 11

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

But altogether essential to delimit this sort of trap-door of exteriority that I am trying
to define with regard to the function of the dust-bin in its relationships with writing.
This does not imply the exclusion of all hierarchy. Let us say that among the reviews
that we are surrounded by, there are more or less distinguished dust-bins. But in
looking carefully at things I have not seen any tangible advantages in the dust bins of
the rue de Lille as compared to those of the surrounding area.


So then let us take up our hole again. Everyone known that a Zen exercise has
something to do, even though people do not know very well what that means, with the
subjective realisation of a void.


(15) And we are not forcing things in admitting that anyone, the average
contemplative, will see this figure, will say to himself that there is something like a
sort of high point which ought to have some relationship with the mental void that it is
a matter of obtaining and that this singular high point will be obtained in an
abruptness, succeeding a wait which is sometimes realised by a word, a sentence, an
ejaculation, even a rudeness, a cocking of the snoot, a kick in the backside. It is quite
certain that these kind of pantalooneries or clowning have no sense except with
respect to a long subjective preparation.


But again. At the point that we have got to, if the circle, however empty it may be, is
to be considered by us as defining its holing value, if finding favour in it to depict
what we have approached by all sorts of convergences, about what is involved in the
o-object; that the o-object is linked qua fall (chute) to the emergence, to the
structuring of the subject as division is what represents, I must say, the whole point of
the questioning.


What is involved in the subject in our field is this hole, this fall, this ptose, to employ here a Stoic term the quite insoluble difficulty of which for the commentator when it is confronted with the simple categoren seems to me is this with respect to a lecton, another mysterious term, let us translate it (produisons-le) with all sorts of reservations and in the crudest fashion (16) which is certainly inexact by meaning, incomplete meaning, in other words a fragment of thought.


One of these possibilities, fragment of thought is ………….. Commentators, of course,
caught by the incoherence of the system do not so much miss the relationship by
translating it as subject, logical subject, since it is a matter of logic at this level of
Stoic doctrine, they are not wrong. But we can recognise in it the trace of this
articulation of something which falls with the constitution of the subject. Here is
something that I believe we would be wrong not to be comforted by.


So then are we going to be content with this hole? A hole in the real, that‟s the
subject. A little facile. We are still here at the level of metaphor. We might find here
however, by pausing for a moment, a precious indication, notably something that is
altogether indicated by our experience which could be called the inversion of the
function of the Euler circle, we would still be in the field of the operation of


We would rejoin here the necessary path to what Freud defined as the
Bejahung first of all which alone makes the Verneinung conceivable, there is the
Bejahung, and the Bejahung is a judgement of attribution. It does not prejudge
anything about existence, it does not tell the truth about the truth. It gives a start to
the truth, namely something that will develop …………. as for (17) example, the
qualification, the quiddity which, moreover, is not quite the same thing.


We have an example of it in psychoanalytic experience. It is primary for our object
today. It is the phallus. The phallus, at a certain level of experience, which is
properly speaking the one analysed in the case of Little Hans, the phallus is the
attribute of what Freud calls living beings. Let us leave this to one side, if we do not
have a better designation.


But note that if this is true, which means that everything that develops in the register of animism would have had as a beginning an attribute which only functions by being placed in the centre, by structuring the field at the outside and by beginning to be fruitful from the moment that it …………. ,namely, when it can no longer be true that the phallus is the attribute of all living beings.


I repeat, if I put forward this schema, I only did so in parenthesis. Let it be said in
passing that if my discourse unfolds from the parenthesis, from suspense and from its
closure, then from its often very embarrassed resumption, you should recognise there,
once again, the structure of writing.


Is this then, do we have here then, one of these summary reminders to which there
would (18) be limited the exhaustion of what we are trying to do. Certainly not. For
it is not a matter for us of knowing at the point to which we take the question, how the
signifier colours the real. That one can colour any map whatsoever on a plane with
four colours and that this is enough, even though this theorem is up to the present still
verified, even though it has not been proven.

因此这难道就是,我们在此难道因此拥有,其中一个结论性的提醒物。我们正在尝试去做的的全面性,将会被限制在那里。当然不是。因为问题不是这个时刻我们要知道,我们对它提出问题,能指如何渲染实在界。那个能指能够渲染任何地图,在具有四种颜色的层面。这样就足够了,即使一直到现在,这个公理依旧被证实 即使它没有被证明。

This is not what interests us today. It is not a matter of the signifier as a hole in the
real. It is a matter of the signifier as determining the division of the subject. What
can give us the structure of it?


No void, no fall of the o-object that a primordial anxiety is able to account for, and I
am going to try to make you sense it by topological considerations. If I proceed in this
way, it is because there is a quite striking fact which is that, as long as scribblers have
been around, and God knows that it is quite a while ago, even if one believes that
writing is a recent invention, there is no example that everything that is of the order of
the subject and of knowledge, at the same time, cannot always be written on a sheet of


I consider that this is a fact of experience that is more fundamental than the one that we have, that we might have, that we believe we have, of three dimensions. Because we have learned to make these three dimensions vacillate a little, it is enough
for them to vacillate a little bit for them to vacillate a lot.



Object 10

January 13, 2012

Object 10

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

It is in so far as these diverse forms of numerical expression are reproduced at
different moments of scansion, I am saying that in reproducing temporally we are not
even sure that it is the same circuit that is involved in this reproduction: we will have
to see. In other words, there are perhaps structural forms of this constitutive lack of
the subject which differ from one another, and that perhaps it is not the same lack
which is expressed in this negative number in connection with which one can indeed
say that the introduction by Kant of this number into the field of philosophy is really,
and when one returns to it, of a really heart-breaking character. Perhaps it is a great
merit that Kant tried such an introduction. The result is an unbelievable mess.


(11) Thus it is perhaps not the same moment of the structural lack of the subject which is supported, I am not saying here is symbolised, here the symbol is identical to what it causes, namely the lack of the subject. I will come back to it. At the level of lack there has to be introduced the subjective dimension of lack and I am astonished that no one has remarked in the article by Freud on fetishism the use of the verb vermessen and one can see that in its three uses in this article he designates the lack in the subjective sense, in the sense that the subject misses out.


We are brought then to this function of lack in the sense that it is linked to this
original thing which, being called the cut, is situated at a point where it is writing that
determines the field of language.


If I was careful, I mean, to write Function and field of speech and language it is
because function refers to the word and field to language. A field has an altogether
precise mathematical definition.


The question was posed in the first part of an article which appeared this week, I believe, in any case it was this week that I received its delivery by someone who is very close to some of my listeners and who introduces with a vivacity, a crispness, a vitality which really gives it an inaugural importance this question of the (12) function of writing in language.


He highlights in a fashion which I must say is definitive, irrefutable, that to make of writing an instrument of what is, of what lives in the word is absolutely to fail to recognise its true function.


That it must be recognised elsewhere is structural to language because of something
that I indicated sufficiently myself, if only in the predominance given to the function
of the unary trait in identification so that I do not have to underline my agreement on
this point.


Those who attended my former seminars, if they still remember something about what
I said, may remember the value given to something, something in appearance so out of date and uninterpretable as the discovery made by Sir Flinders Petrie about
predynastic potsherds, namely, long before the foundation of the Phoenician alphabet,
precisely of the signs of this alphabet which is supposed to be phonetic which were
there obviously as a trade mark.


And on this point I stressed the fact that we must at least admit, even when it is a question of writing that is supposed to be phonetic, that the signs came from somewhere, and certainly not from the need to signal, to code phonemes. Indeed everyone knows that even in a phonetic writing they code nothing at all.


(13) On the contrary, they express remarkably well the fundamental relationship that
we put at the centre of phonematic opposition in so far as it is distinguished from
phonetic opposition. These are crude things, which are really way behind when
compared to the precision with which the question is posed in the article that I told
you about.


It is always very dangerous moreover to give references. You have to know to whom.
Naturally those who will read this will see put in question certain oppositions such as
that between the signified and the signifier. It goes as far as that and they will see
there perhaps some discordance where in fact there is none.


On the other hand, who knows, it may encourage them to read one or other earlier or later article. There is always something very delicate in this always fundamental reference that a signifier refers on to another signifier.


To write and to publish is not the same thing. That I write even when I speak is not in
doubt. So then why do you not publish more? Precisely because of what I have just
said. One publishes somewhere.


The fortuitous, unexpected conjunction of this something which is a writing and which has thus close relationships with the o-object gives to every disunited conjunction of writing, the appearance of a dust-bin.


Believe me, at the early morning hour that I come home, I have a considerable experience of dust-bins and of those who busy themselves with them.


There is nothing more fascinating than these nocturnal individuals who snitch something or other whose usefulness it is impossible to (14) understand. I have been asking myself for a long while why such an essential utensil had so easily kept the name of a prefect, to whom the name of a street had already been given and which would have been quite enough to commemorate him.


I believe that if the word dust-bin (poubelle) has come to fit in so well with this utensil, it is precisely because of its relationship with publication (poublication)


To come back to our Chinese, you know, I do not know whether it is true but it is
edifying, one never puts in the dust-bin a piece of paper on which a character has been
written. Pious people, who are supposed to be cheerful because they have nothing
else to do, collect them and burn them on a little ad hoc altar. It is true. Si non e vero e bello.


Object 08

January 9, 2012

Object 08

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

Today you are not being spared drawings and cuts. To be strict even, I was careful to
put on the board on the top left-hand side the one which corresponds to the reminder
that I gave the last time of what I had given at the end of my first year here as the
schema for alienation.


Let us say that alienation consists in this choice which is not really one and which of
two terms forces us to accept either the disappearance of the two or a single one


To enjoy the truth, I said, is the true aim of the epistemophilic drive in which there
escapes and vanishes all knowledge as well as the truth itself. To save the truth, and
in order to do this not to want to know anything about it, is the fundamental position
of science and that is why it is science, namely, a knowledge in the middle of which
there is displayed the (2) following hole that the o-object, here marked by taking
support from an Eulerian convention as representing the field of intersection of truth
and of knowledge. It is clear that I raised more than one objection to these Euler
circles on the plane of their strictly logical utilisation and that in fact, here, their usage
is in a way metaphorical.


These are precautions that should be taken. You must not think that I think that there
is a field of truth and a field of knowledge. The term field has a precise sense that we
will perhaps have an opportunity of retouching today.


This use of the Euler circles is therefore to be taken with reserve. I note this because
over against this reserve that I have just made, you are going to see me today taking
support from, to say certain shapes does not really express what is involved, cut is
closer; signifier, this is what is involved, writing, why not?


In advance then I ask you to note that their decisive importance is to be taken in a
quite different sense to a sense of meaning, as what represents the circle in the Euler
sense here which, in short, is designed to show us how there is included a certain
extensive and comprehensive conceptualisation in what I am showing you in the
centre of these figures that I brought along for you today, something which has been
traced out by a Buddhist (3) monk who is called by the name that I put there on the
board in its Japanese phonetics, since Jiu Oun was Japanese.


Jiu Oun, as one of my faithful friends here today was kind enough to tell me, Jiu Oun
lived between 1714 and 1815. He entered a Buddhist “order” – as I might put it – at
the age of fifteen years and you see that he remained there until an advanced age. His
work is considerable, and I will not tell you about the original foundations which still
carry his mark; in order to give you an idea, for example, of his activity, it would be
enough to evoke, for example, that a Sanskrit study manual, considered today to be
fundamental, comes from him, even if not entirely from his hand and that it contains
no less than a thousand volumes. Which means that he was not a lazy man.


But what you see here is typically the trace of this something which, I would say, is
the high point of a meditation and is not unrelated at least in appearance to what is
obtained from some of these exercises, or rather of these encounters, which are staged
out on the path of what is called Zen.


I would have some scruples in advancing this name here, namely, before an audience a part of which I cannot be sure of as regards the way in which I may be understood, to (4) advance without any precaution a reference to something which is certainly not a secret, which is everywhere to be found and which one hears being spoken about


Zen does not represent something which can go so far as a betrayal of
confidence in the true sense, I cannot advise you too much to distrust all the
stupidities which are piled up under this heading. But after all no more than about
cybernetics itself.


I am forced all the same to say that this, which is traced in a brush stroke of which no
doubt it is not sure that we can appreciate the particular vigour which is, nevertheless,
for an experienced eye rather striking, this brush stroke is what is going to be
important for me, it is on it that I am going to fix your attention to support what I have
to advance today along the path that we have opened up.


There is no doubt that it is here in the proper position that I define as being that of the signifier. That it represents the subject, and for another signifier, is sufficiently assured by the content of the writing which is here aligned and read like the Chinese writing that it is, this is written in Chinese characters: I will pronounce it for you, not in Japanese but in Chinese: Chi yen che [?], which means: “In three thousand years how many men will know? “

无可置疑的,就在这里,在我定义的这个适当的位置,作为能指的位置。能指代表主体,对于另外一个能指,这个能指充分地确的,由于书写的内容,被安排阅读像这个中文的书写,用汉文的文字来书写:我将跟你们拼音出来,不是用日语,而是用汉语:「Chi yen che」,意思是:「在三千年里,多少人知道?」

(5) Will know what? Will know who has made this circle. Who was this man whose
range I thought I ought first of all indicate to you between the most extreme, the most
pyramidal of science and a mode of exercise which we cannot fail to take into account
here as a background to what it allows us to describe here.


“In three thousand years, how many men will know” What is involved at the level of
this traced-out circle. I allowed myself in my own calligraphy to respond: “In three
thousand years, well before, men will know”……………………………………….. Well before three thousand years, and after all it can begin today, men will know, they will
remember, perhaps, that the sense of this drawing deserves to be inscribed in this way.


Despite the apparent difference, it is topologically the same thing. Imagine that this is
round, that what I called a circle is a disc. What I traced out here by hand is also a
disc even though it is in the shape of two lobes, one of which covers the other, the
surface is all of a block, it is limited by an edge which, by continual distortion can be
developed so that one of these edges overlaps the other, the topological
homeomorphism is obvious.


What is meant by the fact, then, that I traced it out in a different way and that it is to this that I now have to draw your attention?

这个事实是什么意思? 我以不同的方式追踪出来的东西。我现在必须提醒你们注意这个。

(6) A drawing which I called a circle and not a disc leaves in suspense the question of
what it limits. In order to see things where they are traced out on a plane, what it
limits is perhaps what is inside, it is also perhaps what is outside.



Object 07

January 9, 2012

Object 07

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

There is another position which is to enjoy (jouir de) the truth. Well then, that is the
epistemological drive. Knowledge as jouissance with the opacity that it brings with it in the scientific approach to the object, this is the other term of the antinomy.



拉康所谓的「享受真理」,基本上的假设是:真理是一种生命力比多libidinal的快乐pleasure,与上帝这个女人作爱的大欢爽jouisance,而不是我的网友新雨所说的「真理是个大骗子」。所谓认识论的冲动epistemological drive,就是弗洛伊德所谓的「死亡本能」death instinct,或是拉康所说的「死亡冲动或驱力」death drive。这种认识生命真理的大欢爽jouissance,当我们凭借科学的方法,探讨作为人的生命的客体,也就是我们的身体,它本质上显现的我们理性思维无法理解的不可思议性,不可言说性opacity,拉康用化学元素「镝」这个术语,具有正反对立又兼蓄的特性来做比喻:生命与死亡互相对立,却又互相产生的悖论。

It is between these two terms that we have to grasp what is involved in the subject of
science. It is here that I intend to take it up again in order to take you further. By this
you should understand, to speak about this radical function.

拉康主张笛卡尔的「我思故我在」的主体,实实在在就是「科学的主体」object of science,使用科学方法的各种定理所意涵的主体,是理性意识的主体。换句话说,对于拉康,被标示为科学化的真理论述,要用高度的数学化来说明。这就是为什么拉康为了让精神分析理论正式化,使用各种数学公式的术语。

I have made nothing emerge yet about what is involved in the o-object, but you ought to sense that the same schema, precisely, that I have not reproduced here, the schema with two circles at the time when I depicted for you the function of alienation as such, remember the example: “ Your money or your life, liberty or death?”


拉康这里所说的两个圆圈的基模,就是画两个圆圈交会,左边圆圈是实在界the Real主体的生命实存Being,右边圆圈是符号界the Symbolic大他者the Other的意义meaning,中间的交会部分vel是无意义地带non-being 。假如我们选择左边圆圈的生命实存Being,主体会消失aphanisis,我们丧失主体,它掉落到中间的无意义地带。假如我们选择右边圆圈意义Meaning,意义存活下来,但是丧失掉中间无意义的部分,换句话说,丧失主体生命展现的部分,也就是无意识的部分。换句话说,这就是这个意义的特性,当它出现在大他者的领域。人作为主体的能指的功用,生命实存会消失。


哲学家黑格尔在精神现象学谈论主人与奴隶的选择,也被拉康用来画成两个圆圈交会的基模。左边圆圈是自由,右边圆圈是生命,中间有一块交会区vel。选择的问题是:你要自由?还是要你的命? Your freedom or your life! 假如他选择自由,他马上会丧失生命与自由。假如他选择生命,他会拥一个被剥夺掉自由的生命。这就是所谓「致命的因素」:我们大部分众生的选择,过著没有自由的奴隶般的劳碌一生。

另外,还有一种选择模式:你要自由?还是要死亡? Freedom or death! 因为有死亡的因素运作,就产生一种完全不同结构的效应。因为不管我选择哪一边,我会拥两者:自由与死亡。听过法国大革命的口号吗?「不自由,毋宁死!」Give me liberty or death!你不仅拥有选择工作的自己,也拥有选择死于饥饿的自由。也就是你在选择死亡之前,你拥有选择的自由。

(请参照拉康的精神分析四个基本观念 ,211-213页)

As I explained to you, the schema for alienation is a choice which is not really one in this sense that one always loses something in it. Either the whole, you enjoy the truth but who enjoys because you know nothing about it? Or you have, not knowledge but science and this intersection-object which is the o-object escapes you. That is where the hole is. You have this amputated knowledge. This is the point on which I will stop today.





精神分析的对象 06

January 8, 2012

Object 06

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

(24) Is it simply the fact, that from a prejudice which is really unbelievable, we choose among all the qualities of the object simply the following: its size, to which we
subsequently apply measurement and people then ask where this comes from. From
Heaven, of course. “Everyone knows that number,” this at least was the way
Krodeker [?] expressed it, if I remember correctly …………….. “except for the whole
number which is a gift of God.”


Mathematicians can allow themselves humorous opinions like that. But the question
is not there. It is precisely by remaining stuck at this notion that quantity is a property
of the object and that one measures it, that one loses the thread, that one loses the
secret of what constitutes the scientific object. What is measured by the ell of
something which is always something else, in the dimensions, and they can be
multiple, of the object as lack.


And the thing is so little a simple one that what we have to see is that the true
experience that one has, on this occasion, is the following: namely, that number in
itself, is not at all a measuring apparatus and that the proof of this was given
immediately after the Pythagorean inspirations; it was seen that number could not
measure what it itself allowed (25) to be constructed, namely that it is not in a position to give a number, a number which is expressed in any kind of commensurable way, for the diagonal of a square which would not exist without number.


I am only evoking this here because what is interesting is that if number, for us, is to
be conceived as a function of lack, this, this simple remark that I made about the
incommensurable diagonal indicates to us what richness is offered to us starting from


For number furnishes us, as I might say, with several registers of lack. I specify, for
those who are not particularly interested in this question: a number described as
irrational, which is nevertheless, at least since Dedekind, to be considered as a real
number is not a number which consists in something which can be indefinitely
approached. It can only be plunged into the series of real numbers, precisely, by
making intervene a function which, not by chance, is called the cut.


This has nothing to do with a goal which keeps retreating as when you write
0.3333……, which is for its part a perfectly commensurable number. It is a third of
one. As regards the diagonal, it is known since the Greeks why it is strictly
incommensurable, namely, that (26) not one of its numbers is predictable up to the
very end.


The only interest of this is to allow you to envisage that, perhaps, numbers will furnish us with something very useful in order to try to structure what is involved for us, namely, the function of lack.


Here we are then before the following position: the Here we are then before the following position: the subject can only function by being defined as a cut, the object as a lack. I am speaking about the object of science, in other words, a hole, things going so far that I think I have made you sense that only the hole, in the final analysis, can act as what, effectively is important for us, namely, the function of material cause. Here are the terms between which we are going to have to tie a certain knot.


Since I was not able, today, to advance my remarks as far as I had hoped because of
the fact that things were not written out and since also, I cannot hope in a week, to
make at my discretion the necessary choice, I will conduct on the third Wednesday of
this month, exceptionally, the same open seminar to which you are all invited.
In order to punctuate, to highlight what is going to be involved I will make an


What relationship can be conceived between this o-object in psychoanalysis and this object of science as I have been trying to present it to you?


(27) It is not enough to speak about the hole, even though all the same, of course, it
seems to me, at least for the sharpest among you, that the solution ought already to be
appearing to you, it has to be said, on our horizon.


The function of lack – I did not say the idea, be careful, we know how this idea caught Plato by the ankle and that he never freed himself from it – we see the function of lack emerging, undergoing the necessary escape (fuite) through the fall of the o-object and this is what these drawings that I brought today, and that I will bring back again the next time, are designed to let you put your finger on.


Such a structure is necessary for a cut to determine the field, on the one hand of the subject as it is necessitated as subject of science and on the other hand, the hole where there originates a certain style of the object, the only one to be retained, the one which is called the object of science and as such can be a sort of cause over which I left a question mark the last time, is such, as it appears only the form of laws.


Or again, where can there be connected up this manifestly materialist aspect, through which science precisely can be designated. It is indeed in this knot of
the function of lack that there lies and there is concealed here the turning point of
what is in question. And what are we going to have at this point which is a point of


(28) We saw it last year in connection with the Fregian genesis of the number one. It
is in order to save the truth that it must function. Saving the truth, which means not
wanting to know anything about it.


最后一句话,「拯救真理意味着不想要知道真理」,谁能诠释? 这个悖论跟基督教的「不要试探你的神」有异曲同工之妙。要信就信,不信拉倒,别先试探上帝的存在,你才要相信上帝。佛教及道教好像也有「天机不可泄露」的箴言。命运的预先注定的真理是存在的,但是你若是事先知道,它会无法实现。要让真理获得验证的先决条件是:你不想知道。


精神分析的对象 05

January 7, 2012

Object 05

The Object of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

What is the best thing he finds to give an idea of it to listeners who are supposed to be
relatively uninformed about what is involved in physics, since up to then they will
only have been taught by incompetents.

什么是他找到的最好的东西,将这个观念给予听众? 这些听众被认为是对于物理学的内容知识比较浅薄的。因为直到当时,他们仅是由能力较差者教导。

He imagines a highly strung little individual whom he calls Denis the menace, Denis, a danger to the public. He is given twenty eight little blocks, but since he is a savage, they are in platinum, indestructible, uncutable, incapable of losing their shape.


The question is to know what Mammy is going to do every time that, in a properly
discreet way, namely, not an American Mammy, comes into her child‟s room and
sometimes finds only twenty three blocks, sometimes twenty two.


(21) It is clear that these blocks will always be found, either in the garden, because
they have been thrown out the window, or in the difference of weight that one may
notice in a box which, of course, is not opened; or because the water in the bath has
risen slightly, but since the water in the bath is too dirty for the bottom to be seen it is
by means of this slight raising of the level that one comes to know where the blocks
have gone. I am not going to read the passage for you. I do not have the time. It is


The author points out that one will always find the same constant number of blocks
with the help of a series of operations which consists in adding together a certain
number of elements, for example the height of the water divided by size of the bath,
by adding this curious division to something else which might be, for example, the
total number of blocks that remain. I hope you are following. Nobody is making


Namely, to do this thing, I tell you in passing, which is included in the least
scientific formula which is that, not alone does one add but one subtracts, that one
divides, that one operates in all sorts of ways with what? With numbers thanks to
which one adds, and without which there would be no possible science, one adds all
together the towels and the serviettes, the pears and the leeks, is that not so?

换句话说,没有人做这件事。我顺便告诉你们,这个除非被包括在最小的科学的公式里。这个公式是 我们不仅增加,而且我们减少,我们扣除,我们以各种的方式运作什么?我们用数目运作,由于这个,我们增加。假如没有这个,将不可能有科学,我们将手巾及餐巾,梨及葱总加在一块,难道不是这样吗?

(22) And what does one teach children when they begin to enter – I hope this is no
longer the way now but I am not so reassured – precisely in order to explain things to
them, one tells them the opposite, namely, that one does not add together the towels
and the serviettes, or the pears and the leeks which means, naturally, that they are
definitively barred from mathematics.


Let us come back to our Feynman. This parenthesis will only lead you astray.
Feynman concludes: “Here is the example. One number is always going to emerge as
a constant: twenty eight blocks. Well now, he says, energetics is like that. Only there
are no blocks.”

让我们回头谈论我们的费曼。这个离题谈论仅是会让你们迷失方向。费曼的结论是: 「例如,一个数目总是会作为一个常数出现: 二十八个方块 。呵呵, 他说,精力能源就像那样。只是没有方块。

This means that this constant number which guarantees the fundamental principle of
the conservation of energy – I mean not simply fundamental but of which a simple
shakiness at the base is enough to throw any physicist into an absolute panic, this
principle must be preserved at any price, therefore it will necessarily be so since it will be at any price, it is the very condition of scientific thinking. But what does the
constancy mean here, that one always finds the same number?


Because that is the whole point. It is not simply a question of a number. That means that something which is lack as such – there is no block – is to be found elsewhere, in another kind of lack. The scientific object is passage, (23) response, metabolism (metonymy if you wish, but be careful) of the object as lack.

因为这就是整个重点。这不仅是一个数目的问题。那意味着,某件欠缺本身的东西—没有方块—应该在别的地方被找到,在另外一种欠缺。这个科学的客体,是客体作为欠缺的过程,反应,及新陈代谢 (你们也可以说是换喻,但是谨慎使用)。

And starting from there many things are clarified. We will refer to what last year we were able to highlight about the function of the one. Does it not seem to you that the first emergence of the one concerning the object, is that of the cave man, to please you, if these sorts of images still please you, who comes home where there is a little bit of food or a lot, why not, and who says: “there is one missing”.


This is the origin of the unary trait: a hole. Of course one could take things much further and we will not fail to do so. Note that this proves that our cave man is already at the high point of mathematics. He knows set theory. He connotes: there is one missing. And his collection is already made. The truly interesting point is obviously the “one” which denotes. Here the referent is necessary. And the Stoics will be of service to us.


It is obvious that the denotation, here, is what? His word, namely the truth which for
its part opens up for us the hole, namely, why “one”? For what this “one” designates
is always the object as lacking. And what would then be the fecundity of what we are
told is the characteristic of the object of science which is that it can always be

显而易见,这个指明出路,在此是什么?他的话语,换句话说,就话语而言,真理跟我们展开这个空洞。换句话说,为什么是这个「一」? 这个「一」所指明的,总是这个客体作为欠缺。我们所被告诉的丰富想象是,科学的客体的这个特征,它总是能够被量化。

人作为单一特征unary strait的这个「一」one的主体,起源是空洞 the hole,这个「一」本质上是欠缺missing,禁欲学派the Stoics 又能够给予我们什么帮助?我的理解是:禁欲学派节制一切情欲,性欲,功名利禄,虚荣等世俗欲望,但并非什么都不欲望,而是欲望空无the void,欲望空无的真理。为什么?正如哲学家尼采Nietzsche在道德系谱系The Genealogy of Morals 的结语所说的:「人宁愿以空无为目标,也不能没有目标。」Man would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose.