Archive for the ‘精神分析的另一面’ Category

From an other to the Other 65

September 22, 2015

From an other to the Other 65
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
29.1.69 IX 14

At the start the father is dead. Only there you are. There remains the
Name of the Father and everything turns around that. If that was the way
I began the last time it is also with that that l am ending. The virtue of the
Name of the Father, is not something I am inventing, I mean that it is not
something I made up; it is written in Freud. The difference, he says
somewhere, between the field of man and that let us say of animality,
consists, wherever it may be, even when this only happens in a masked
form, namely, when it is said that there are some people who have no idea
of what is the role of the male in generation, why not?

一开始,父亲死了。这是你们的情况。父亲的名字依旧在那里。每样事情都绕着那件事旋转。假如那就是我上次开始的方式。我也是用那个方式来结束。父亲之名的品德并不是我正在发明的某件东西。我指的是,父亲之名并非是我杜撰的东西。它在弗洛依德那里就被书写。他在某个地方说过,人的领域与动物的领域之间的差异,就在无论那是什么,即使是当它仅是以被遮蔽的形式发生,换句话说,据说,于有些人们并不知道,在传宗接代方面,男性扮演的角色是什么。为什么不知道呢?

What it demonstrates, I mean the importance of this function of the Name of the
Father, is that even the very people who have no idea of it invent spirits to
fill it. In a word, what is characteristic is that Freud in a very precise
place articulates it – 1 am not going to waste my time telling you on what
page and what edition because now there are places where Freudian
readings are done and there are all the same competent people to indicate
it to those that are interested in it – the essence, in a word, and the
function of the father as Name, as pivot of discourse, depends precisely on
the fact that after all, you can never know who the father is. You can
always look, it is a question of faith.

它所证明的东西,我指的是,父亲之名的功能的重要性。即使是那些并不知道它的人们,杜撰各种精神来填补它。总之,表现特性的东西是,在一个非常明确的地方,弗洛依德表达它。我并不是要浪费我的时间,来告诉你们在哪一页以及什么版本,因为现在弗洛伊德的读书会举行的地方,仍然有些胜任的人们指示它,对那些感到興趣的人们。总之,父亲作为名字的本质与功能,作为辞说的枢纽,确实是依靠这个事实:毕竟,你们永远不知道父亲是谁。你们总是寻找,这是信仰的问题。

With the progress of science, you
manage to get to know in certain cases who he is not, but in any case he
remains all the same an unknown. It is altogether certain that this
introduction moreover of biological research into paternity cannot be
without an impact on the function of the Name of the Father.
Therefore, it is here, at the point where it is precisely only by maintaining
oneself in the symbolic, that there is the pivot around which turns a whole
field of subjectivity.

随着科学的进展,你们设法变得知道,在某些情况,父亲并不存在,但是无论如何,他始终是一个未知。这是完全确定的,而且,生物研究的这个介绍进入父亲,不可能没有影响,对于父亲之名的功能。因此,就在这里,在确实仅是凭借维持自己在象征界,总是有个枢纽。主体的领域就是环绕这个枢纽旋转。

We have to take the other aspect of what is involved
in the relationship to enjoyment and, in a word, to be able to advance,
which is our object this year, a little further into what is involved in the
transmission of the Name of the Father. Namely, what is involved in the
transmission of castration. I will end today, as usual, at the point that one
gets to one way or another and I will see you the next time.

我们必须接纳,在跟享乐的关系,所牵涉的东西的另外一个层面。总之,我们必须能够前进,这是今年我们的目标,稍微更加深入前进,进入父亲之名的传递牵涉的东西。换句话说,在阉割的传递所被牵涉的东西。我今天将结束,如同平常一样,在我们到达某个方式的时刻。下次我将再见你们。

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

From an other to the Other 64

September 21, 2015

From an other to the Other 64
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

You must think that here this becomes very interesting, namely, that this
minus infinity that you see appearing in the top right hand box, this is……..
expressed in the little writings of Pascal by the name of hell. Only this
S t –
– II
= — oG
II
– 0
presupposes that there should be examined why the function of the o
culminated in this most questionable idea that there is a beyond of death.

你们一定认为,在此,这变得有趣。换句话说,这个负的无限,你们看见它出现在右手边的盒子的顶端,这是、、、在巴斯卡的小著作里被表达,以地狱的名字。只是这个预先假定,应该被检视一下,为什么这个0的功能在这个可疑的观念达到顶峰,存在着一个死亡的超越。

29.1.69 IX 12

No doubt because of its indefinite, mathematical slippage, in any kind of
signifying chain wherever you pursue the final circumscribing, it always
subsists intact as I already articulated at the beginning of the year in a
certain schema of the relationships of S and 0. But then this may induce
us to ask ourselves what is meant by the emergence under the form of
minus infinity of something on this table.

无可置疑地,因为它的不明确的数学的失误,以任何一种能指化的锁链,无论你在哪里追寻这个最后的划定范围。它总是保持完整,如同我已经被表达,在这年的开始,用S与0的关系的某个基模。但是,因此,这可能引导我们询问我们自己,这个出现是什么意思,在这个表格上面,某件东西的负-无限。

Is this minus not to be
expressed in a way more homologous to its arithmetical function, namely,
that when it appears, the series of whole numbers is duplicated which
means is divided. There is here the sign of this something that appeared
to me the only thing worth recalling at the end of my last discourse. It is
that by taking as an o-object and not otherwise what is brought into play
(117) in the renunciation proposed by Pascal there is just as much infinity
where there is a limit as where it does not encounter this operation of o.
In any case, it is a half infinity that we engage with which singularly
balances out the chances in the first matrix.

这个“负”难道不是应该被表达,用某种更加类同的方式,类同算术的功能?换句话说,当它出现时,整数的这个系列被复制,这意味着,整数被区分。在此,有这个某件东西的符号,我觉得那是唯一的东西值得提醒一下,在我上次的研讨班的结束。凭借接纳作为o的客体,而不是别的,接纳巴斯卡所建议的放弃,被运作的东西,同样存在着一个无限。在这个无限那里,有一个限制,作为它没有遭遇0的这个运作的地方。无论如何,这是一半的无限,我们参与的无限,它独异地平衡在第一个基模的各种机率。

Only it may well be that we should remember differently what is
represented in this myth which, even though it forms part of dogma does
nothing, as Pascal reminds us, but bear witness that the mercy of God is
greater than his justice since he plucks out some chosen ones, while they
ought all to be in hell.

只是,很可能,我们应该用不同方式记住所被代表的东西,在这个神话里。即使它形成部分的教条,这个神话并没有做任何事情,巴斯卡提醒我们,而是见证到:上帝的仁慈大过于他的正义。因为上帝挑选出某些被选择的人们。虽然他们全部都应该在地狱里。

This proposition may appear scandalous. I am
astonished at it since it is quite clear and manifest that we have never been
able to imagine this hell beyond what happens to us every day. I mean
that we are already in it, that this necessity that surrounds us of not being
able, except at a horizon whose limits need to be questioned, to realise the
solid o, except by an indefinite repeated measure of what is involved in
the cut of o.

这个命题看起来像是丑闻。我对它大为吃惊。因为显而易见,我们从来没有能够想像这个地狱,超越我们日常所发生的事情。我的意思是,我们已经是在地狱里。这个环绕我们的必要性,不能够体会出这个固体的0,除了在不需要被询问的地平线的极限,除了凭借不明确的重复的测量,在0的这个切割所牵涉的东西。

Is this not enough, just by itself, to make the most
courageous lose heart? Only there you are. There is no choice. Our desire
is the desire of the Other, and depending on whether grace has been
lacking to us or not, what is played out at the level of the Other, namely,
of everything that has preceded us in this discourse that has determined
our very conception, we are determined or not to the course of stopping up
the o-object.

这难道不足够让即使是最勇敢的人也丧失志气吗?光是凭借它的自。你们就是在地狱那里。没有选择余地。我们的欲望就是大他者的欲望,并且依靠恩典是否欠缺给予我们而定,所被扮演的东西,在大他者的层面。换句话说,在一切早先于我们之前存在的东西的层次。在这个决定我们的观念的辞说,我们决定是否要停止这个0的客体的途径。

So then there remains the fourth box, the lower one. It is not for nothing
that I allowed myself today to smile about them They are just as
numerous, just as divided up as those who are in the field of the top right.

因此,剩余下这第四个盒子,这个下方的盒子。这并非白费力气,我让我自己拖延微笑关于它们。它们同样数目很多,同样被区分,跟处于右上方的领域的那些人们。

I call them, provisionally, the granddads. You would be wrong
nevertheless to minimise the with which they get around, but all the same
what I would like to point to you is that, in any case, it is here that we in
analysis, have placed the proper norm Surplus enjoying is explicitly
modulated as foreign to the question. If the question at stake in what
analysis promises us as a return to the norm, how can we not see that this
norm is well and truly articulated there as the law, the law on which the
Oedipus complex is grounded. And it is quite clear that whatever end one
takes this myth from that enjoyment is absolutely distinguished from the
law.

我暂时称他们为祖父。可是,你们将是错误的,假如你们忽略这个领域,他们用来活动的领域。但是,我仍然想要跟你们指出的东西是,无论如何,就在这里,在精神分析,我们已经放置这个专有名词“剩余享乐”,它明确地被调节,作为是外在于这个问题。假如在精神分析岌岌可危的问题,承诺给予我们作为回归这个名称。我们如何会不能够看出,这个名称清楚地被表达,作为法则。伊狄浦斯情结就是以这个法则作为基础。显而易见地,无论我们从那个享乐来看待这个神话的目的,绝对被区别出来,跟这个法则不同。

To enjoy the mother is forbidden, we are told, and this does not go
far enough. What has consequences is the fact that to enjoy the mother is
forbidden. Nothing is organised except from this first statement. This can
be clearly seen in the fable in which the subject, Oedipus, never thought –
God knows because of what distraction, I mean because of everything that
was developed around him in terms of charm and probably also of
harassment by Jocasta – the idea never came to him, even when proofs
were flooding in. What is forbidden is to enjoy the mother and this is
confirmed in the formulation in another form.

享受母亲是被禁止的,我们被告诉。这并没足够深入。所造成结果的东西是这个事实:享受母亲是被禁止。没有一样东西被组织,除了从这第一个陈述。这显而易见能够被看出,在这个寓言里。在那里,主体,伊狄浦斯,从来没有认为—天晓得,因为怎样的狂乱,我的意思是,因为环绕他每样被发展的东西,用魅力的术语,可能也是周卡达到骚扰的术语—他从来没有这种想法,即使当证据汹涌而来。所别禁止的东西,就是享乐母亲。这是在诠释里,用另外一个形式证实的。

It is indispensable to bring
all of them together in order to grasp what Freud is articulating, that of
Totem and Taboo. The murder of the father blinds all these imbecilic
young bulls that I see circling around me from time to time in ridiculous
arenas. The murder of the father means precisely that you cannot kill him
He has been dead for all time. It is indeed for this reason that something
sensible is attached, even in places where it is paradoxical to see there
being belled: God is dead. It is because obviously, by not thinking about
it, you run the risk of missing one aspect of things.

无可免除的,要将它们所有聚集一块,为了理解弗洛依德正在表达的东西,“图腾与禁忌”的东西。对父亲的杀害让所有这些白痴一般的年轻公牛眼睛盲目,有时,在那些荒谬的斗牛场,我看见他们环绕着我。对父亲的杀害确实意味着,你们无法杀死他。他已经死掉一段时间了。确实是因为这个理由,某件合理的东西被联系。即使是荒谬地看见被大声宣告:上帝死了。因为显而易见地,凭借不去思考它,你们冒的危险是错过事情的某一层面。

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

From an other to the Other 63

September 19, 2015

From an other to the Other 63
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
29.1.69 IX 10
You are engaged, what does that mean if not to play on words, it is the
moment of the entry of the “I” into the question. What is engaged is the
“I”. If there is a possibility in the game of engaging anything whatsoever
to be lost, it is because the loss is already there, this indeed is why you
cannot cancel the game. Now what we learn from psychoanalysis, is that
there are effects that are masked by the pure and simple reduction of the
“I” to what is stated. And how can we, for even an instant, when it is a
matter of a game imaged by Pascal’s pen, neglect the function of grace,
namely, that of the desire of the Other.

你们参与,那是什么意思?参与难道不就是玩弄文字?那就是这个“我”受到质疑的时刻。所被参与的东西,就是这个“我”。假如有一个可能性,在参与任何将会丧失的东西的遊戏里。那是因为这个丧失已经在那里。这确实是为什么你们无法取消这个遊戏。现在,我们从精神分析学习到的东西是,有些结果被遮蔽,被这个纯粹而单纯的“我”的还原到所被陈述的东西。我们如何能够忽略恩典的这个功能,即使有那么一个瞬间,当它是巴斯卡的笔下想像的遊戏的事情。换句话说,大他者的欲望的事情。

You must not believe that it may
also have come into Pascal’s mind that even to understand his so
ridiculously imaged wager grace was necessary. As I told you, in every
naive imaging of the relationship o f the subject to demand, there is in
short a latent “Thy will be done”. This indeed is what is put in question
when this will, which is precisely not ours, is lacking. In other words, let
us not delay any longer and let us pass on to this God who is indeed the
one, the only possible one in question, from Pascal’s pen. The fact of
giving him the same letters will change nothing about the difference, we
are already going to see it being sufficiently articulated in the distribution
/ ………………………
on the table by which we are indeed going to see that this distribution is
no different from itself.

你们一定不要相信,它可能也不是来自巴斯卡的心灵,即是是为了理解他的如此荒谬地想像的赌注恩典是必要的。如同我告诉过你吗,用天真地想像主体的这个0跟要求的关系。总之,有有一个潜在的“你将会完蛋”。这确实是受到质疑的东西,当这个意志是欠缺的,它确实并不是我们的意志。换句话说,让我们不要再拖延,让我们传递给这位上帝,他确实就是这位上帝,传递这个唯一的可能的意志,受到质疑的意志,从巴斯卡笔下。给予他相同的信件的这个事实,将不会改变任何东西,关于这个差异。我们已经将会看见它被充分地表达,

Let us say things crudely: God exists. For the subject supposed to know
it, we will then write the couple zeroco, in one of the squares of the
matrix. I am supposed to know it but something has to be added, that I am
for it. And if I am against it, all the while supposing the knowledge that
God exists, in that case the choice is between the o, and this indeed is
what is involved throughout the whole thread of the thinking that Pascal
states, I deliberately lose the infinity of infinitely happy lives.

让我们粗略地说出事情。上帝存在。对于应该知道它的主体,我们将会书写双倍的零00的这个观念,在这个基型的四方格的其中一个方格里。我应该知道,但是某件东西必须被增加,我赞同它。假如我反对它,我始终假设上帝存在的这个知识。在那个情况,这个选择在0之间。这确实是所被牵涉的东西,在巴斯卡陈述的这个思想的整个脉络里面。我刻意丧失这个无限快乐生命的无限。

And then, I am supposed to know that God does not exist, well then, why
not think that I can all the same engage the o, lose it, quite simply. It is all
the more possible because it is its nature to be a loss. Because to measure
what is involved in a game where I keep it at a certain price, the price
of less than the infinite, it can be legitimate to ask if it is worth the trouble,
to give oneself so much difficulty to keep it. If there are some people who
keep it at the cost of the loss minus infinity you must picture to yourselves
that there were many people who threw out the o without having any
concern about the immortality of the soul. These in general are what are
called wise men, the granddads, not simply fathers, granddads. This has a
lot to do with the father as you are going to see.

因此,我应该知道上帝并不存在。呵呵,你们为什么不认为,我任人能够参与这个0,丧失它,就是丧失它。这是更加是可能的,因为丧失就是它的特性。因为测量遊戏里所被牵涉的东西。在遊戏里,为花费某个价格拥有它,少于无限的价格。这有时是合理的,假如我们询问它是否值得这个麻烦,给我们自己这么多的困难,为了保有它。假如有些热门保有它,花费这个“减去无限的丧失”的代价。你们能够跟自己描绘,有许多人们抛掉这个0,而没有关心到灵魂的永恒。通常,这些都是所谓的聪明的人们。祖父,不仅是父亲,是祖父。这跟父亲有密切的关系。你们将会看出。

Here, you have those on the contrary who keep the o and let nothing
(116) disturb their sleep. As regards the next zero, what is striking in this
distribution, is the consistency that comes from the subject supposed to
know but is it not a consistency made up however little of indifference.
He is, I am wagering for, but I do not know very well what He is. He is
not, naturally I wager against, but it is not a wager, all of this has nothing
to do with a wager.

在此,你们相反地拥有那些人们,他们保有这个0,而不让任何事情扰乱他们的睡眠。关于下一个零,在这个分配里引人注意的东西,就是这个一致性。来自应该知道的主体的一致性。但是,这难道不是由冷漠组成的一致性吗?无论这个冷漠是多么轻微。上帝存在,我赌注赞同。但是,我并不请楚知道上帝是什么。上帝并不存在,当然,我赌注反对。但是它并不是一个赌注。所有这一切都跟赌注没有丝毫关系。

On the diagonal, you have people who are so certain
that there is no wager at all, they go with the wind of what they know, but
what does to know mean in these conditions? It means so little that even
those who know nothing can form a unique box of it.

在这个斜角线,你们拥有一些人们,他们如此确定,根本就没有赌注。他们同意他们知道的东西的方向。但是在这个情况,知道是什么意思?知道并没有多大意义,以致于即时是什么都不知道的人们,也能够用它来形成一个独特的盒子。

Namely, that
whatever it may be — and you will allow me to remark in passing that I am
not extrapolating at all on what is in this respect Freud’s tradition, namely,
that I am not going beyond my borders – if you consult the volume that I
recalled earlier, you will see that all the time Freud makes this calm
remark that when all is said and done, everything involved in the belief of
a Christian does not lead him to change his behaviour all that much as
compared to those who are not so.

换句话说,无论那是什么。你们将会容许我顺便谈论一下。我根本就没有估算在这方面,什么是弗洛依德的传统。换句话说,我并没有超越我的边界。假如你们参照我早先提到的那本书,你们将看出,始终,弗洛依德发表这个镇定的谈论,当一切都说都做了,被牵涉到基督徒的信仰里的一切东西,并没有引导他改变他的行为,作为跟那些并没有确定的人们作为比较。

It is in the position, as I might say, of a
purified subject that what happens on the left-hand diagonal can be
organised in the little matrix on top. But what is important, what
undoubtedly shows us something unexpected is the one who wagers
against, on the foundation of what he knows to be and the one who wagers
for, just as if what he knows very well not to be, was.

我不妨说,就是在一个纯净化的主体的立场,在左手边的斜角线所发生的事情,能够被组织,在顶端的这个小基型里。但是,重要的是,无可置疑地跟我们显示某件意料之外的东西,是这位赌注反对党人。根据他知道具有存在的东西的基础。这位赌注赞同的这个人,好像他清楚知道并不存在的东西,当时存在。

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

From an other to the Other 62

September 17, 2015

From an other to the Other 62
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

29.1.69 IX 8
If this o is to be immediately retained, we have zero as the equivalent of
this o, which represents nothing other than a risky stake that in games’
theory must be considered as lost. If we want to articulate in a wager
what is involved in Pascal’s wager it is not at all a sacrifice. It is the very
law of the game that there must be a zero possible, if the promise – just as
there is not acceptable anything that is situated beyond death – is no longer
tenable, and we ourselves, we have here a zero, but this means nothing,
except that here also the bet on the other side is lost.

假如这个0能够立即被保留,我们拥有零,作为是这个0的相等物。这个0代表的实实在在就是一个冒险的赌注,在遊戏理论。这个0必须被认为是丧失。假如我们想要用赌注表达所被牵涉在巴斯卡的赌注的东西,它根本就不是一个牺性。就是遊戏的法则:必须要有一个可能的零。假如许诺不再能自圆其说,就像有某件被定位在超越死亡的东西没有被接受—我们自己,我们在此有一个零,但是这并不意味着任何事情,除了,在此,另一方面的赌注已经输掉。

In fact, in Pascal’s wager the stake is identical to the promise. It is because
this promise is stated that we can construct this matrix and once it is
constructed it is absolutely clear that the asymmetry of the stakes requires
that effectively, if the conduct of the subject is only defined by what is
determined from a signifying pinpointing, there is no question.

事实上,在巴斯卡的赌博,赌注等同于许诺。因为这个许诺被陈述,我们能够建构这个基型。一旦它被建构,绝对明显的是,这些赌注的不均称有效地要求那个基型。假如主体的行为仅是被定义,被所被决定的东西,从一个能指化的强调,这是不可能的。,

The difficulty only begins when we see that the subject is not at all something
that we can frame, any more than, earlier, from the relationship of 1 to 1,
from the conjunction of any number of signifiers, but from the falling
effect that results from this conjunction. And that gives to our o here
written in the lower left hand box a liaison that is in no way separable
from the construction of the matrix itself. It is very precisely what is at
7 . . . stake in the progress that is generated from psychoanalysis.

仅有当我们看见,主体根本就不是某件我们能够架构的东西,这个困难才开始。正如从1到1的关系,不是从任何能指的数字的联接,而是从因为这个联接造成的逐级掉落的结果。那个联接给予一个关系,给我们的0,在此,我们的0被书写在下方左手边的盒子。这一个关系根本没有分开,跟这个基型本身的建构。这确实是岌岌可危的东西正在进展当中,从精神分析被产生。

It is this liaison that must be studied in its consequences that precisely creates the
divided subject, namely, not linked to the simple establishment of this
matrix. Because henceforth it appears obviously quite clear that the zeros
in the matrix are themselves only a fiction because of the feet that you can
lay out a matrix, in other words, write it. Because the zero written at the
bottom is the starting zero, well marked by Peano’s axiomatisation as
(114) necessary for infinity to be produced from the series of natural
numbers. Without infinity, there is no zero to be taken into account
because the zero was there essentially to produce it.

必须被研究的这个关系,在它的结果里,确实创造这个被分裂的主体。换句话说,这个分裂的主体并没有跟这个基型的单纯的建立有关联。因为显而易见地,这个基型里的这些零,换句话说,书写它。因为在底端被书写的这个零,就是开始的零。这个开始的零清楚地被标示,皮诺的公理化标示为无限的必要性,能够从自然数字的系列产生的无限性。假如没有无限性,就没有零能够被考虑。因为零必然在那里,为了产生它。

It is also indeed from such a fiction as I reminded you earlier, that the o is
reduced to zero when Pascal makes his argument. Besides, all you are
doing is losing zero given that the pleasures of life, this is how he
expresses himself, do not amount to much and especially with respect to
the infinity that is opened out to you.

这也确实是从这样一个幻想,如同我早先提醒你们。这个0被化简成为0,当巴斯卡表达他的论点。除外,你们所必需做的事情,就是丧失的零,假如考虑到,生命的快乐并没有多大意义,这就是他表达他自己的方式,特别是关于被打开给你们的这个无限。

This is very precisely to use a
mathematical liaison, the one that states in effect that no unit, whatever it
may be, added to infinity will do anything more than leave intact the sign
of infinity. Except that, nevertheless, as I showed you on several
occasions that we can absolutely not say that we do not know whether
infinity, as Pascal argues to make it opaque in a way homologous to the
Divine Being, that we cannot rigorously say, that it is ruled out that you
can say that the addition of a unit will not ensure that we cannot say
whether it is odd or even. Since, as you have seen in the decreasing
series, all the even operations will be piled up on one another and all the
odd operations on the other, to totalise the infinite sum which nevertheless
remains reducible to a 1 of a certain type, the 1 that enters into connection
with the o.

这确实是要使用一个数学的关系。这个关系实际上陈述:被增加到无限的单元,无论这个单元是什么,没有一个单元将会做任何事情,除了就是让无限的这个符号保持完整。可是,除了,如同我跟你们显示,在好几个场合,我们绝对不能说,我们并不知道,是否无限,如同巴斯卡主张的,为了让无限成为模糊,类似神性的存在。我们无法严谨地说,无限被排除,你们能够说,一个单元的增加将不会保证,我们无法说,这个单元是奇数或偶数。因为,如同你们看见,在这个逐渐减少的系列,所有的偶数的运算,将会互相被堆积,所有的奇数的运算在另外一边,将无限的数目化为整体。这个无限的数目始终被化简成为某种形式的1,这个1跟这个0产生关联。

You sense here that I am only indicating in passing all sorts of points
illuminated by the progress of mathematical theory that in a way, make
the veil move. What is under this veil is very precisely what is really
involved in the articulation of this discourse whatever it may be, including
that of the aforesaid promise. The fact is that in neglecting what it hides,
namely, its falling effect at the level of enjoyment you fail to recognise the
true nature of the o-object.

你们在此感觉到,我仅是顺便指示各种各样的点,被数学理论的进步启明的点。在某方面,这些的点让面纱移动。在这个面纱底下的东西确实是这个辞说的表达所牵涉的东西,无论它是什么辞说,包括以上所说的许诺的辞说。事实上,当我们忽略它所隐藏的东西,也就是,它在享乐的层面的掉落的结果,你们一定会体会出这个小客体的真实的特性。

Now, what our practice, which is a practice of
discourse and nothing else, shows us, is that it is necessary to divide up
differently what is involved in the stake if we want to give it its true sense.
Pascal himself indicates to us, this is what confuses it in minds, it must be
(115) said, that seem to be singularly little prepared by a professorial
function to master what is at stake, when what is at stake is a discourse,
you are engaged, he tells us, what is less engaging than such a matrix?

现在,我们的实践是辞说的实践,不是别的东西。我们的实践跟我们显示的东西是,用不同方式将这个赌注所被牵涉的东西区分开来是必要的。假如我们想要给予它具有它的真实的意涵。巴斯卡自己跟我们指示,这就是在心灵让它感到混淆的东西。我们必须说,即使是专业的功能都非常罕见有所准备,为了掌控岌岌可危的东西。当岌岌可危的东西是一个辞说,你们参与,他告诉我们,你们参与到
不像这个基型那么有趣的东西。

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

From an other to the Other 61

September 16, 2015

From an other to the Other 61
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
29.1.69 IX 5

7 . . . Namely, this o in which alone there can be grasped what is involved in
enjoyment as compared to what is created from the appearance of a loss.
Let it be enough for me to add here this trait or more exactly to this
highlighting of the distance between what is involved in the Hegelian
solution of Selbstbewusstsein from the one that a rigorous examination of
the function of the sign gives us every time that there reappears in any
way whatsoever that it is in a relationship of 1 to 1 that the solution can be
found.

换句话说,这个0,光是在那里,在享乐被牵涉的东西能够被理解,作为跟从丧失的出现所被创造的东西比较。让我仅是在此补充这个特征,或更加确实地补充这个距离的强调,处于所被牵涉到东西,在黑格尔的“自我意识”的解决,跟严格地检视符号的这个功能给予我们的严格的检视。每次,以1跟1的关系重新出现的东西,这个解决被找到。

I am writing it here in a humorous fashion, make no mistake. Ask
yourselves what is involved. What tends to give this image as
representing an ideal that one day could be closed by an absolute
knowledge? Is it indeed like the H that I have just translated humorously,
is it indeed man, homol Or why not the hysteric, because let us not forget
that it is at the level of neurotic identification – re-read the text and
preferably in German, in order not to be obliged to have recourse to these
painful publications that the attention of some zealous people ensures are
the only thing that we have recourse to when we only want to use French.
Crappy editions, there is not even a table of contents. Anyway you will
see – if you refer to the appropriate article, Group psychology and the
analysis o f the ego, in the chapter on identification, that it is, of the three
types of identification stated by Freud, in the middle one that he inserts
properly speaking into the field of neurosis, that there appears, that there
arises the question of the einziger Zug, this unary trait that I extracted
from it.

我在此正在写作它,用幽默的方式,请你们不要误解。请你们询问自己什么被牵涉在内。是什么倾向于给予这个意象,作为代表一个理想;一天能够被封闭,用绝对的知识?这确实就像是这个H,我刚刚幽默地翻译,那确实是人,Homo!或者为什么不是这个歇斯底里?因为请让我们不要忘记,就在神经症的认同—请你们重新阅读这个文本,最好是德文版,为了不要被迫求助于这些令人痛苦的出版物。某些热忱的人们的专注保证的出版物,仅是我们求助的东西,当我们仅是用法文。艰涩的版本,甚至连内容目录都没有。无论如何,你们将会看见—假如你们提到适当的文章,“群体心理学与自我的分析”。在探讨认同的章节,有三种的认同被弗洛依德陈述,处在中间的一个认同,恰当而言,他插入到神经症的领域,那里出现,那里产生‘独异特征“的问题,我从那里抽离出来。

If I recall it here, it is in order to indicate that in the continuation
of my discourse I will have to come back to it. Because very curiously, it
is in neurosis from which effectively we started, that there appears the
most ungraspable form, contrary to what you may imagine – and it is in
order to allow you to ward it off that I am announcing it here – the most
ungraspable form of the o-object.

假如我在此提醒它,那是为了指示,在我的辞说的连续体,我将必须回到它。因为耐人寻味地,就是在神经症里,我们有效地开始,在那里,出现最难理解的形式,跟你们可能想像的东西恰恰相反。为了让你们捍卫它,我在此正在宣佈它—这个小客体的最难理解的形式。

(112) Let us come back now to Pascal’s wager and to what can be
inscribed about it. The fastidiousness of philosophers seems in effect to
make us lose the greater part of its meaning. It is nevertheless not because
every effort has not been made for that including inscribing the data
within a matrix in accordance with the forms in which there are today
inscribed the results that are described as those of games’ theory. In this
form it is put, as I might say, in question. You are going to see how,
strangely, people claim to refute it.

让我们到巴斯卡的赌注,回到所能够被铭记在它身上的东西。哲学家的讲究细节实际上似乎让我们丧失它的意义的最大的部分。可是,这仍然不是因为每个努力并不是因为那样被做。包括铭记这个资料,在对应于这些形式的基型里。在那里,今天,这些结果被铭记,被描述作为是遊戏理论的那些结果。以这个形式,它被质疑,我不妨说。你们将会看出,人们如何奇异地宣称要反驳它。

Here in effect is what is involved. Let us clearly observe that the wager is
consistent from the following position, we cannot know either whether
God is or what He is. The division then of the cases that result from a
wager engaged on what? On a discourse that is attached to it, namely, a
promise imputed to it, that of an infinity of infinitely happy lives thanks to
the fac that I speak and I do not write.

在此,实际上,所被牵涉的东西。让我们清楚地观察,这个赌注是一贯的,从以下的立场。我们既无法知道上帝是否存在,也无法知道上帝是什么。因此,因为赌注所造成的这些情况的区分参与什么?参与一个跟它连系一块的辞说。换句话说,一个被灌输给它的承诺。无限快乐的生活的永恒,由于我是言说这个事实,我就不书写了。

Here, even though I speak in
French, you cannot know any more, I point out to you, than on the little
bit of paper by Pascal which is in shorthand whether this infinity of lives
is in the singular or in the plural. Nevertheless, it is clear, in everything
that follows in Pascal’s discourse that we ought to take it in the sense of a
plural multiplication, since moreover he begins to argue that it would be
worthwhile to bet simply in order to have a second life, indeed a third and
so on. What is at stake then is indeed a numerical infinity.

在此,即使我用法语谈论,你们仅是知道,我跟你们指出,关于巴斯卡所写的这小张纸,速记的纸条,无论生命的这个永恒是单数,还是复数。可是,显而易见,在以下的每件事情,在巴斯卡的辞说,我们应该用复数的加倍来看待。因为他开始主张,这将是值得的,仅是打赌,为了拥有第二个生命,的确定,第三个生命,等等。当时岌岌可危的事情,确实是数字的永恒。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
29.1.69 IX 7

Here then is what is engaged, something, as has been said that we have at
our disposition for the game, namely, a bet. Let us picture this bet. It is
legitimate from the moment that we ourselves have been able to advance
in order to grasp what indeed is at stake in the question, namely, this q
enigmatic surplus that makes us all be in the field of any discourse
whatsoever, namely, the o. It is the stake; what we are going to have to
justify is why we write it here in this little box. It is the stake and on thi
other hand, the infinity of infinitely happy lives.

因此在此时所被参与的东西,如同已经被说过的,我们拥有一个赌注可以让我们使用来参与这个遊戏。让我们描绘一下这个赌注。它是合理的,从我们自己能够提出的这个时刻,为了要理解针对这个问题,确实岌岌可危的是什么。换句话说,这个谜团一般的剩余,让我们大家处在任何辞说的领域。换句话说,这个小客体。就是这个赌注,我们将必须自圆其说的东西。就是为什么我们在此它书写它,在这个小盒子里。在另一方面,这个赌注,这个无限快乐的生命的永恒。

What are we dealing
with? Ought we to imagine it as this support for the burgeoning of whole
numbers, for the burgeoning that is always moreover behind the o-objects
by a term. It is a question that is worthwhile evoking here i£ as you see, it
did not already involve some difficulties. But undoubtedly what was
involved was the increasing series.

我们正在处理什么?难道我们应该想像它,作为是整数的成长的支持?这个成长总是在这些小客体的背后,跟随一个项目。这个问题值得在此召唤。如同你们看见,它并未必总是牵涉到某些的困难。但是,无可置疑地,所被牵涉的东西,是这些逐渐增加的系列。

‘ t
to C O
0
The infinity at stake is the one that Pascal illustrates by representing it by
7 . . . a sign analogous to the one here, the infinity of whole numbers, since it is
only in relation to it that the starting element becomes ineffective, I mean
neutral. It is under this heading that it becomes zero because it is ……………………….
(113) identified to the addition of zero to infinity, the result of the addition
only being able to be represented by the sign that designates one of the
two terms.

岌岌可危的这个永恒是巴斯卡说明的这个永恒。凭借代表它,用一份符合,类似于这里的这个符号。整数的无限。因为仅有跟这个无限相关时,开始的因素变的无效。我指的是中立。就在这个标题之下,它变成零。因为它认同与零的增加到无限。增加的结果仅能够被代代,被这个符号,指明这两个项目的其中一个。

Here then is how things are imaged and if I made this matrix it
is not because it appears adequate to me but because it is the ordinary one
that people use. Namely, that people remark that according to whether
there exists or not what we image here in a legitimate fashion by o, since
it is the field of a discourse depending on whether this o is to be admitted
or to be rejected. You are going to see there being represented in each of
these boxes which here have no more importance than the matrices by
which a combinatorial is pinpointed in games’ theory.

在此,因此是事情如何被想像。假如我制作这个基型,那并不是因为它对于我似乎足够。而是因为这是人们使用的普通的基型。换句话说,人们谈论,依照在此我们想像的东西是否存在,以合理的方式,凭借这个0的小客体。因为这是辞说的领域。这个辞说依靠这个0是否能够被承认,或能够被排斥。你们将会看见被代表,在每一个盒子,它们的重要性仅是这些基型。凭借这些基型,一个组合在遊戏理论里被强调。

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

From an other to the Other 60

September 14, 2015

From an other to the Other 60
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
0°t>
(^ke Oo.C ‘ l3/0-J
|3 – 2 . l o * 0 ?
. (
≫t
I≫
I + o ≪
O
F.U f
■ > SIA tyCcV” ”
5 ( O
Q – 0 * ^ I £
S
-6
1 ( l )
I X 2. ( 6 o )
l + o
i
s J L _
i – t o
c^vVi^tcJ ,S\A.by*olr

Besides, if something is necessary to confirm this for you, it is enough for
you to look at the decreasing series as I have written it, or rather rewritten
it, because I already wrote it the last time on the left. It is enough for you
to see how it is constructed. The series of numbers that constitute the
/Fibonnaci series appears there in an alternating fashion, namely, that there
is here an o, 3o, 5o, 8o and that as regards whole numbers, they also
alternate 1,2,3, 5, 8,13……..it is in an alternating fashion that what is
written as whole number is at the right and then on the left and so on.

除外,假如某件东西是必要的,为了跟你们证实这个,你们只要观看一些这些逐渐减少的数列,依照我已经书写它,或重新书写它,就足够了。因为我上次已经书写它在左边,你们只要看出它如何被建构就足够了。形成费波那奇数列的数字的数列出现那里,以轮替的方式。换句话说,在此有一个0,30,50,80 。关于整数,他们也轮换 1,2,3,5,8,13、、、、、、用这个轮换的方式,被书写作为整数的东西,处于右边,然后在左边,等等。

(110) In the same way as regards what is involved for the number that is
affected to o; but as you see, the o has always here an advance on the
whole number. It is 1, here, while the whole number will only be 1 at the
following term and so on. That is why it changes places because, for a
positive result to be maintained, and what is involved in this series, so that
each of its terms should be written in a positive fashion, it is necessary
that there should pass alternately from one side to the other what is
numbered as a whole number and what is numbered as o. Now, as you
see, since o is less than 1 and because we know on the other hand, because
of the position of this first equality that it is going to be expressed by a
growing power of o, the result of this difference is going to become
smaller and smaller with respect to something that it constitutes as a limit.

同样地,关于所被牵涉的东西,对于受到0影响的这个数字.但是你们看见,这个0在整数总是一种进展。在此,这是1,当整个的数字将会是1,在以下的项目,等等。那是为什么它改变位置,因为为了让一个正面的结果被维持,在这个数列被牵涉的东西。这样,每个它的项目应该被书写,用正面的形式。这是必要的,所被列为整数的东西,与被列为0的东西,应该轮替地从一边到另外一边。现在,你们看见,因为0少于1。因为另一方面,我们知道,因为这第一个方程式的位置,它将会被表达,被0的逐渐成长的次方,这个差异的结果将会成为越来越小,关于某件东西,它形成作为限制的东西。

This is what is called a converging series and converging towards what?
Towards something that is not 1 but, as I showed you the last time by the
image of the folding back of this o onto the 1, then of the remainder which
was o2 onto the o, which produces here o3 the o3 being folded back, which
produces here o4,the whole arriving here at a cut that produces
o/o2 = o + o2 = 1.

这就是所谓的汇集的系列,汇集朝向什么?朝向某件并不是1的东西,但是,如同我上次跟你们显示,凭借这个0折叠回到1的意象。然后,02的这个馀数折叠成为这个0,它在此产生03,被折叠回来。它在此产生04,整数在此到达一个切割,产生0/02=0+02=1

It is because of this that the limit of the converging series inscribed here is
placed at the level of 1 + o, itself equal to l/o. What does that mean?
What is represented, properly speaking, by what is functioning here? The
question of how it is possible to correctly represent what is involved in a
possible conjunction of the division of the subject in so far as it would
result from a rediscovery of the subject. Here, a question mark as regards
this subject.

因为这个切割,在此被铭记的这个汇集的系列的限制,被放置在1+0的层次,它的本身等于1/0。那是什么意思?恰当地说,所被代表的东西,被在次发挥功能的东西?这如何是可能的?要正确地代表所被牵涉的东西,用一个可能的连接主体的分裂,因为它将从主体的重新发现所造成。在此,关于主体,这是个问号。

What is involved in the absolute subject of enjoyment and
the subject that is generated from this 1 that marks it, namely, the point of
origin of identification. There is a great temptation to put forward the
writing of the Hegelian Selbstbewusstsein, namely, that the subject being
posited by this inaugural 1, has only to connect up with its own figure qua
formalised. The subject of knowledge is posited as knowing itself. Now,
it is precisely here that the fault appears, if it is not seen that this can only
be effective by positing the known subject, as we do, in the relationship of
the signifier to another signifier. This shows us that here it is the
relationship not of 1 to 1 but of 1 to 2 that is at stake, and that therefore, at
no moment is the original division abolished.

在享乐的这个绝对的主体,所被牵涉的东西,与从这个标识它的这个1产生的主体,换句话说,认同的起源点。有强烈的诱惑要提出黑格而的“自我意识”的书写。换句话说,主体被这个就职的1所假设。它只要跟它自己作为正式化的的人物连接一块就可以了。知识的主体被假设,作为知道它自己。现在,确实就是在这里,这个错误出现。假如我们没有看见,仅是凭借假设这个已知的主体,这才能够是有效的。如同我们所做,在能指跟另外一个能指的关系。这跟我们显示,在此,那并不是1跟1的关系,而是1跟2的关系,岌岌可危。因此,原初的分裂根本就没有被废除。

It is only at the horizon of an infinite repetition that we can envisage the
relationship, here simply imitated, as something that corresponds to this
relationship of 1 to 1, the subject of enjoyment as compared to the subject
established in the mark whose difference remains irremediable since,
however far you push the operation that this reduction generates, you will
always find between one term and the other and inscribed as the result of
the loss, the relationship that you start from, even if it is not inscribed in
the original inscription, namely, the o relationship.

仅是在无限重复的地平线,我们才能够构想这个关系。在此,仅是被模仿的关系,作为某件东西对应于1对1的这个关系。享乐的主体被比喻为在这个标记被建立的主体,它的差异始终是无可弥补的。因为你将化简产生的这个运作无论逼迫如何深入,你们将总是在一个项目与另外一个项目之间,发现这个关系,被铭记作为丧失的结果,发现你们从那里开始的这个关系。即使它并没有被铭记在原初的铭记里。换句话说,这个0的关系。

This is all the more
significant because it is a matter precisely of a relationship and not a
simple difference that, in a way, will become more and more negligible
with regard to the pursuit of your operation. So that if, as it is easy to
(111) verify, you take this operation in the sense of the increasing series
here, the difference between the whole numbers, namely, between what is
inscribed in 1, the foundation of the original subjective identification and
the number of o will always continue to increase because here, in the
direction of the addition, it is always from the relationship of a number of
o that corresponds to the smallest term to a number of whole numbers that
correspond to the greatest term that is at stake.

这是更加重要的,因为这确实是属于关系的事情,而不是单纯的差异。某个程度来说,这个单纯的差异将会变得越来越被忽略,关于你们运作的追寻的结果。所以,因为要验证是容易的,你们採取这个运作,用增加系列的意义,处于整数之间的差异,处于所被铭记为1,原初的主体的认同的基础,与0这个数字之间的差异,它总是继续增加,因为在此,在这个增加的方向,它总是从许多的0的关系,这个0的关系对应于这个最小量的项目,到许多的整数。这些整数对应于岌岌可危的最大的项目。

Namely, with respect as I
might say to an extension of the whole numbers of the subject, taken at a
mass level, there will always be a greater lack of o units. There will
perhaps not be o for everyone. Take this, I am passing on, I will come
back to it perhaps in an apologue question. What is important for us
undoubtedly, what is going to count in our plumbing of Pascal’s wager is
what becomes of it in the sense that, in a no less infinite fashion, the o can
be approached. That once more there appears to us what gives in an
analogical form what is involved in the relationships of 1 to 1+ o.

换句话说,虽然我可以说是带着尊敬,对于主体的整数的延伸,在集体的层次看待,总是会有0的单位的更大的欠缺存在。或许并非对于每个人都是0。请你们拿着这个,我传递下去。我将回头谈论它,或许用一个寓言的问题。对于我们,重要的事情,无可置疑地,在巴斯卡的赌注的测量里计算的东西,就是它发生的事情。以同样无限的方式,这个0能够被接近。再一次,出现在我们身上的,是用类比的形式给予的东西,在1跟1+0的关系牵涉的东西。

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

From an other to the Other 59

September 13, 2015

From an other to the Other 59
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

29.1.69 IX 1
Seminar 9: Wednesday 29 January 1969
(107) I left you the last time rather firmly advanced into the field of
Pascal’s wager at the point punctuated by what I have just written on the
board. Namely, on the remark about the essential identity of the series that
I told you we place at a starting point situated between o and l in a
completely arbitrary way. Arbitrary takes on its sense with the same
accent that de Saussure gives this word when he talks about the arbitrary
character of the signifier. I mean that at the point that we have placed the
cut between a series decreasing to infinity and an increasing series, in the
same way we have no reason to situate this point except from writing.

我上次离开你们,坚定地前进巴斯卡的赌注的领域,就在我刚刚书写在黑板上的东西强调的点。换句话说,在关于数列的基本的认同的谈话。我告诉你们,我们将这个数列摆放这个开始的点,被定位在0与1之间,以完全任意性的方式。任意性具有它的意义,带着相同的强调,索绪尔给予这个字的强调。当他谈论关于能指具有这个任意性的特性。我指的是,在这个时刻,我们已经放置这个切割,处于数列之间,减少到无限的数列与逐渐增加的数列之间。同样地,我们没有理由定位这个点,除了用书写。

Namely, that here the 1 has no other function than that of the trait, of the
unary trait, of a stroke, of a mark. Only, however arbitrary it may be, it
nevertheless remains that without this 1, this unary trait, there would be no
series at all. This is the sense that must be given in de Saussure – an
author who is no doubt super-competent declares that I betray him at my
pleasure – that without this arbitrariness, language would not have,
properly speaking, any effect.

换句话说,在此,我没有其他的功能,除了这个特征的功能,独异性特征的功能,笔画的功能,标记的功能。只是,无论这个特征如何的任意性,问题仍然是,假如没有这个1,这个独异性特征,数列将根本就不会存在。这就是在索绪尔,必须被给予的意义—他无可置疑是这么一位超级胜任的作者,他宣称,我随我高兴地背叛他—假如没有这个任意性,恰当地说,语言将不会有任何的影响。

So then, this series is constructed on the fact that each of its terms is
produced by the addition of the two terms that precede this term. This is
the same as saying that in the other direction, each is made up of the
subtraction of the smaller of the two that follow it from the greater. It is
constructed on the principle that the relationship of one of these terms to
the following is equal to the relationship of the following one as it is
produced by being added to it, which seems to add a second condition to
it. To posit that the o, the term I have just spoken about, is equal to the
following 1, in its relationship to what again is going to follow it, namely,
to the addition of this 1 to o, seems to specify this series by a double
condition.

所以,这个数列被建构,根据这个事实:每一个它的项目被产生,被在这个项目之前的这两个项目的增加。这如同是说,在另外一个方向,每一个项目都从较大项目跟随它而来的两个项目的较小项目的扣减。它被建构,根据这个原则:这些项目的其中一个跟以下一个项目的关系,相等于是以下的项目的关系。因为它被产生,由于被增加到它身上。这似乎是增加第二个条件给它。提出这个0,我刚刚谈论到的这个0,等于是以下的1,在它的关系,跟再次跟随它而来的东西的关系。换句话说,跟这个1到0的增加的关系。这似乎指明这个数列,用双重的条件。

Now, this is precisely what is erroneous as can be seen by the
fact that if you posit as a law of a series that each of its terms should be
formed from the addition – no doubt the function of addition here
deserves to be specified in a more rigorous fashion but since it is not a
matter here, in this connection, of me having to go into extensive
considerations about what is involved in set theory, we will stick to the
operation commonly known under this term and which is already,
moreover, given at the source of what we have posited, at the source of
this series, I mean the first one.

现在,这确实是错误的事情,从这个事实看出;假如你们提出,作为一个数列的法则,每一个它的项目应该被形成,从这个增加—无可置疑,在此增加的这个功能,应该值得被指明,用更加严谨的方式。但是因为关于这一点,我的问题并不是要探讨广泛的考虑,关于在集合理论所牵涉的东西。我们将坚持这个运作,共同被知道的运作,在这个项目之下。而且,它已经被给予,在我们已经提出的东西的来源,在这个数列的来源。我指的是第一个数列。

http://www.lacaninireland.com
29.1.69 IX 2

Here then is the series 1,1. It is enough to establish it to write that in this
(108) series U0 will be equal to 1, that Ui will be equal to 1 and
subsequently that any U„ will be the sum of U„_ i and of Un_2. This series
is called the Fibonacci series and you see that it is subject to a unique
condition. What is going to be produced in this series demonstrates that it
is essentially the same as the series first posited. Namely, that if you
operate between them by any defined operation whatsoever, if you add for
example term to term, if you multiply term to term, also for example, you
can also take other operations, there will result another Fibonacci series.
Namely, that you confirm for yourself that the law of its formation is
exactly the same, namely, that it is enough to add two of its terms to get
the following.

在此就是这个数列,1,1。我们只要建立它,就足够书写:在这个数列(108),U0 将会相等于1,那个U1,将会等于1。随后,任何的U,将会是U的总数、、、1与Un-2的总和。这个数列被称为是费波那奇数列。你们看见,它隶属于一个独特点条件。将会被产生的东西,在这个数列,证明它基本上是相同的,跟首次被提出的系列。换句话说,假如你们在它们之间运作,凭借任何被定义的运作。假如你们增加,譬如,逐项增加,假如你们逐项乘,譬如,你们也能够採取其他的运作。结果将是另外一个费波那奇数列。换句话说,你们能够替自己证实,数列的形成的法则确实是相同的。换句话说,只要将它的项目的两个增加,就可以得到以下。

What becomes then of this marvellous proportion, this o that seems, in the
series that I started with, that you can decorate as you know with the
function of the golden number that, in effect, appears there, from the
beginning under the form of this o, manifested here by the fundamental
position of o: o = l/l+o.

这个神奇的比例因此发生的事情,这个0,在我开始的这个数列,你们能够装饰,如同你们知道,用黄金数字的功能。实际上,它出现那里。从一开始,在0的形式之下。它在此被展示,被这个基本的立场:0:0=1/1+0。

This little o is not missing in any Fibonacci
series, for the following reason. If you make the relationship of each of its
terms to the following term, namely, 1/1 first of all, that I did not wnte
because 1/1 means nothing, then V1, then 2/3, 3/5,5/8, you will obtain a
result that very rapidly tends to inscribe the first two decimals, then the
three, then the four, then the five, then the six, of the number that
corresponds to this small o.

这个小小的0,并没有失落,在任何费波那奇的数列。因为以下的理由。假如你们形成这个关系:它的每个项目跟以下的项目的关系。换句话说,首先是1/1,我并没有写下,因为1/1并没有什幺意义,因此1/1,然后,2/3我并没有写下,因为1/1并没有什幺意义,因此1/1,然后,2/3/,3/5,5/8。 你们将会获得一个结果,非常快速地,这个结果倾向于铭记前面的两个小数。然后,这个3,这个4,然后这个5,然后这个6.对应于这个小0的数字。

And it does not matter that it is written as
0.618 and what follows, something that is very easy to verify. We already
knew that o was less than unity and that the important thing is that we see
that this o very quickly, once you get away from the starting point of the
Fibonacci series, is going to be inscribed as a relationship of one of its
terms to the following term.

它被书写作为0.618,并无关紧要。后面跟随的东西,某件非常容易验证的东西。我们已经知道,0是少于一致性。重要的事情是,我们看见,这个0很快地,一旦你们从费波那奇数列的开始点脱离,这个0很快地将会被铭记,作为以下的项目的它的项目的关系。

This to demonstrate that there is not in the
choice of o, that we have precisely because it is placed before the problem
of the represented command, which is lost in the position, in the fact of
posing the inaugural 1 as reduced to its function of mark, this choice of o
for its part, has nothing arbitrary because it is in the same way as the loss
that we are aiming at, that which, at the horizon, at the goal of our
discourse, constitutes surplus enjoying. Like this loss, the o, the limiting
relationship of a term of a Fibonnaci series to the one that follows it, like
this loss the o is only an effect of the position of the unary trait.

为了证明,在这个0的选择时并不存在着,因为它被放置在被代表的命令的这个难题的前面,这个被代表的命令迷失在这个立场,在提出这个就职的1的事实。作为被化简到它的标记的功能。0的选择,就它而言,并没有任何任意性的东西。因为以跟丧失的同样的方式,我们目标,在地平线,针对我们的辞说的目标,形成“剩余享乐“。就像这个丧失,这个0,费波那奇的数列的项目跟随之而来的这个项目的关系。像这个丧失,这个0仅是独异性特征的这个立场的影响。

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

From an other to the Other 58

September 12, 2015

From an other to the Other 58
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

22.1.69 VIII 14
Today I was only able to lead you to the following approach: the
proportion already inscribed in the simple entry into a field along the
simple scripturist path. We have of course to verify it from other angles.

今天,我仅是能够引导你们到以下的途径:这个比例已经被铭记在这个简单的入口,进入一个领域,沿着简单的解经学的途经。我们当然必须验证它,从其他的角度。

If this o, I have said – and this is even, I underline, the image, the
illustration and nothing more – is what conditions the distinction of the‘T’
as sustaining this field of the Other and being able to totalise itself as a
field of knowledge, what has to be known, precisely, is that by being thus
totalised, it will never reach the field of sufficiency that is articulated in
the Hegelian theme of Selbstbewusstsein. Because precisely in this
measure and in the very measure of its perfection the “I” of enjoyment
remains completely excluded.

假如这个0,我曾经说过—这是偶数,我强调,这个意象,这个说明,再没有别的。这就是为什么这个“我”的区别受到制约的地方,作为是维持大他者的这个领域。以及它能够让它自己成为整体,作为知识的领域的区别受到制约的地方。确实地,所必需被知道的事情是,它由于被成为整体,它将永远到达不了充足的领域。这个充足的领域被表达,在黑格尔的“自我意识”的主题。因为确实地,在这个测量,在它的完美的这个测量,享乐的这个“我”始终被完全排除。

What is important for us, is to confirm that
not alone would no addition of one to the other not add up in the form of
any figure whatsoever, of an added 2, this divided “I” finally connects up
with itself.

对于我们,重要的事情是要证实:一被增加到大他者,不但没有在任何数字的形式上增加,被增加的2,这个分裂的“我”,最后跟它自己连接一块。

What is most piquant at this point, is to notice, as I will show
you the next time, because this field, as you see, far from being
interminable is simply long and I need time to articulate it for you, anyone
between now and then, and I must say that I hope that there are a good
number who will not need to do it, informs himself about what the
Fibonacci series means will obviously be better prepared than the others
for what I do for the others.

在这个时刻,最耐人寻味的东西是要注意到,如同下次我将跟你们显示。因为这个领域,如同你们看见的,根本就不是可以终止。它就是漫长,我需要时间来跟你们表达它。在现在跟下次之间的任何人,我必须说,我希望,会有许多的人们不需要这样做,他告知他自己,关于费波那奇数列意味的东西,显而易见地,他们将会比其人的人们更加有心理准备,因为我替其余的人们解说的东西。

That is, explain to them, namely, and it is
very important, that a series constituted by the simple addition of 1 to 1,
then of this last 1 to what precedes it to constitute the third term, in other
words 2, then 1 + 1 = 2 ,1+2 = 3, then 2 + 3 = 5 etc. 1,1,2, 3, 5, 8, 13
etc. You can note in passing that these numbers are already inscribed and
(106) that it is not without reason, only the relation of each of these
numbers to the other is all the same not the o relationship.

换句话说,跟他们解释,也就是说,这是非常重要的,一个由简单的1+1的数列,然后,这个最后的1,加到先前的1,为了组成第三个术语。换句话说,2,然后1+1=2, 1+2=3,然后2+3=5,等等。1,1,2,3,8,13,等等。你们能够顺便注意到,这些数字已经被铭记,而且(106),那并不是没有理由。仅是每一个这些数字跟另外一个数字的关系。它仍然并不是这个0的关系。

22.1.69 vm 15

I will start the next time from this fact that in the measure that they grow,
namely, for any Fibonacci series – all the Fibonacci series are homologous
– you can start from any number whatsoever and make it grow by any
number whatsoever, if you simply observe the law of addition, it is a
Fibonacci series and it is the same one. And whatever it may be, if you
make it grow, you will obtain between these numbers these proportions
that are already inscribed, namely, the relationship of 1 to o. And you will
notice that it is from o as it was in relationship to 1 that the number leaped
from one term to the other. In other words, whether you start from the
division of the subject or whether you start from o, you will notice that
they are reciprocal.

下次,我将从这个事实开始,在它们成长的测量里,也就是说,就任何的费波那奇数列而言。所有的费波那奇的数列都是同质性。你们能够从任何数字开始,并且让它成长,凭借任何的数字。假如你们仅是观察增加的法则。这是一个费波那奇数列,它是相同的数列。无论它是什么,假如你们让它成长,你们将会获得这些数字之间的这些比例。这些比例已经被铭记。换句话说,1跟0的关系。你们将会注意到,它是从0开始,依照它在跟1的关系里。这个数字从一个术语跳跃到另外一个术语。换句话说,无论你从主体的分裂开始,或是否你们从0开始,你们将会注意到,它们是互惠的。

I wanted to leave you here, on this approach that I am calling that of pure
logical consistency. This will allow us to situate better what is involved in
a certain number of human activities. That the mystics should have
attempted along their path this relationship of enjoyment to the 1, is not a
field that I will be tackling here for the first time. Because already in the
first years, the obscure times of my seminar, I put forward for you then,
for those who were there, three or four, Angelus Silesius. Angelus
Silesius is a contemporary of Pascal. Try to explain what his verse means
without having his distichs. Le Pelerin Cherubinique, I recommend it to
you; you can buy it at Aubier, it is not out of print!

我想要在此离开你们,针对这个途径,我正在称为是纯粹逻辑的一贯性的途径。这将会让我们能够更加贴切地定位所被牵涉的东西,在某些的人类的行动里。神秘主义者本来应该沿着他们的途径,企图享乐跟这个1的关系。这并不是一个领域,我首次将会在此克服的领域。因为已经在前几年,我的研讨的某些模糊的时刻,我当时跟你们提出,为了那些在现场的人们,三或四位,希力西思,是巴斯卡的当代人。请你们尝试解释他的诗是什么意思,而没有用有他的两个项目。Le Pelerin Cherubinique,我推荐它给予你们,你们能够买它,在奥比尔书店。它并没有绝版。

What is involved in it, certainly, does not directly concern our path. But if
you want to see the place that the /, the Ich holds in it, you will see that it
refers back to the question that is here our real goal and that I am
repeating at the end today, do I exist (est-ce que j ’existe)l You see how
an apostrophe, is enough to falsify everything. If I say, I exist, that’s it,
you believe it, you think that I am talking about me, simply because of an
apostrophe. Does it exist, speaking this time about the “I”. But this it,
ugh! Third person, we have said that it was an object. There we are
making an object of the “I”. Simply by omitting the third person, that can
be used also to say it is raining. You do not talk about a third person, you
do not say “he is raining”, it is not your pal that is raining. It is raining. It
is in this sense that I am using it exists. Is there something of the “I” (du
“J e”) that exists?

在它里面被牵涉的东西,确实地,并没有跟我们的途径有直接关系。但是假如你们想要看出这个位置,这个“I”,这个“我”在它里面拥有的位置。你们将会看见,它回溯到这个问题:我们真实的目标,就在这里。我正在重复这个问题,今天结束时:“我存在吗?”你们看出,一个括弧如何就足够让每件事情成为虚假。假如我说,我存在,那就是这么一回事。你们相信它,你们认为,我正在谈论关于我。仅是因为一个括弧。它存在吗?这一次谈论关于这个“我”。但是这个“it”,呵呵!第三人称,我们已经说过,那是一个客体。我们在那里形成这个“我“的一个客体。仅是凭借省略第三人称,那也能够被用来说:天正在下雨。你们并没有谈论到第三人称。你们并没有说:他正在下雨。正在下雨的并不是你们的朋友。天正在下雨。我正在使用”它存在“,就是这个意义。有这个”我”的某件东西存在吗?

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

From an other to the Other 57

September 11, 2015

From an other to the Other 57
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

22.1.69 vm 12
I mean that in effect, in a sense, we find what? Nothing more wonderful
than a series including a growth that is called infinite of whole numbers,
but that is all the same in the final analysis of the order of what is called
numerable. A series constituted in this way, which is called a geometrical
progression, in other words described as exponential, remains numerable.

我的意思是,实际上,从某个意义,我们发现什么?除了一个系列,并没有什么令人惊奇的东西,包含一个所谓的整数的无限的成长。但是追根究底,那仍然是属于所谓的可以计算的东西的数字。用这个方式形成的系列,它被称为是几何的进展。换句话说,它被描述作为指数的进展。这样一个系列始终是可以计算的。

When I pointed out to you that it is only in a scripturist way that the point
where the 1 and the o lies is important for us, this is not to neglect its
incidence now and to say that it is starting from some points that we see a
difference. The decreasing infinity is the same in its generation. Only it
culminates, instead of culminating at infinity since all the same we know a
little bit more about infinity and we have learned to reduce this infinity of
whole numbers to its proper and distinct value. Only on the other hand, as
I showed you here, by beginning from there, because this has its interest,
you will have a limit, a limit that the series can approach as closely as
possible, in a way less than any size that is chosen, however small it may
be, namely, very precisely 1 + o.

当我跟你们指出,这是从某些的点开始,我们看见一个差异。逐渐减少的无限是相同的,在它的产生里。只是它达到顶峰,而不是朝着无限达到顶峰。因为我们仍然稍微更加知道关于无限。我们已经获知要化减整数的这个无限,化减成为它的适当与清楚的价值。只是在另一方面,如同我跟你们在此显示,凭借从那里开始。因为这拥有它的興趣,你们将会拥有一个限制,这个系列能够尽可能接近的限制,有某个程度少于被选择的大小,无论它是多么的小,换句话说,确实就是 1+0.

The starting point of Pascal who in his notes writes simply infinitynothing
is in effect exactly the point where there lies at once his sureness
(104) of touch and the really functional point from which everything that
follows is determined. Because what he calls nothing, as moreover he
indicates in the most explicit fashion in other notations of his, is simply
that starting from a point, besides I told you any one whatsoever, we
obtain in one direction, the decreasing direction, a limit. But it is not
because it has a limit that it is less infinite. On the other hand what we
obtain on the other side, namely, a growth that, for its part, has no limit,
this does not specify this direction as more specifically infinite.

巴斯卡的开始点,在他的笔记里,巴斯卡仅是写到“无限-空无”实际上确实就是这个点,在那里,他的碰触到确定性立即在那里。这个确实发挥功能的点。从那里,每件跟随而来的东西被决定。因为他所谓的“空无”,如同他用最明确的方式指示,在他的其他的注释里。那仅是,从一个点开始。除外,我告诉你们任何一位,我们获得一个限制,朝着某个方向,这个逐渐减少的方向。但是,这并不是因为它有一个限制,它比较不那么无限。在另一方面,我们从另一方面获得的东西,也就是,获得成长。就它本身而言,这个成长并没有限制。这并没有指明这个方向,作为是更加明确地无限。

Moreover, when Pascal writes nothing, it is not by chance; he himself
suspects, that nothing is not nothing, that it is something that can be put on
the scales, and very especially at the level that we have to put it in the
wager.

而且,当巴斯卡书写空无时,那并不是偶然。他自己怀疑到,空无并不是空无。空无是某件能够被摆上天平的东西。特别是在这个层次,我们必须将它放在赌注里。

22.1.69 v m 13

But here does there not appear something, something that must be seen,
that in the final analysis, if in the field of the Other there is stated a
revelation that promises us, I repeat, an infinity of infinitely happy lives, I
am sticking to their numerical statement. And for a while Pascal sticks to
it also. Because he begins to ponder, one life against two lives, is that
worth the trouble? But yes, but yes, he says; against three lives, still
more; and naturally the more of them there are the more worthwhile it is!

但是, 在此某件东西并没有出现,某件必须被看见的东西。追根究地,假如在大他者的领域,有一个跟我们许诺的启示被陈述,我重复一遍,无限快乐的生命的无限,我坚持它们的数字的陈述。有一阵子,巴斯卡也坚持它。因为他开始沉思,一个生命,比起两个生命。那是值得这个费心吗?但是,是的,他说,比起三个生命。而且,自然地,他们数目越多,生命就越是有价值!

Only we see this important thing, which is that in all the cases that we
choose even when it is nothing that we lose we are deprived of a semiinfinite.
This corresponds to the field of the Other and in the way that we
can precisely measure it as 1 by means of the loss. As regards the genesis
of this Other, if it is true that we can distinguish it from the 1 before the 1,
namely enjoyment, you see that by having affirmed the 1 + o, by having
done the addition of it with infinite care, it is indeed about o in its relation
to 1, namely, about this lack that we have received from the Other as
compared to what we can build up as the complete field of the Other, it is
from there, from the o, and in an analogical fashion that we can hope to
take the measure of what is involved in the 1 of enjoyment with respect to precisely the sum that is supposedly realized.

只是我们看见这个重要的事情。那就是,在所有的情况里,我们选择,甚至当我们输掉的是空无,我们被剥夺掉“半无限”。这对应于大他者的领域,以我们能够确实测量它的方式,如同我凭借输掉的方式。关于这个大他者的开始,假如我们确实能够区别它,跟这个“我”的不同,在这个“我”之前,也就是“享乐” 之前。你们看见,凭借曾经肯定这个”1+0”, 凭借曾经无限小心地从事它的增加。那确实是关于这个“0”,在它跟这个“1”的关系。换句话说,关于这个欠缺,我们从大他者接收的这个欠缺,跟我们能够建立的东西比较起来,作为是大他者的完整的领域。就是从那里,从这个“0”,以类比的方式,我们能够希望採取这个测量,对于所被牵涉的东西,个享乐的这个“1”,关于确实就是这个应该被实践的数字。

(105) We know that; we find that again, we analysts. The most
characteristic, the most subtle form that we have given of the function
cause of desire, is what is called masochistic enjoyment. It is an
analogical enjoyment, namely, that at the level of the surplus enjoying, the
subject takes on in a qualified fashion this position of loss, of waste
product that is represented by o.

我们知道,我们发现,我们作为精神分析家。我们曾经给予欲望的原因的功能,最具特色,最为微妙的形式,就是所谓的受虐狂的享乐。这是一个类比的享乐,换句话说,在剩余享乐的层次,主体用品质化的方式,拥有丧失的这个立场,被0所代表的废料产物。

And his whole effort is to constitute the
Other as the field simply articulated in the style of this law, of this
contract which our friend Deleuze has so happily emphasised to supply for
the trembling imbecility that reigns in the field of psychoanalysis!

主体的整个的努力就是要建构大他者,作为是这个领域,仅是用这个法则的风格表达的领域,这跟我们的朋友德勒兹如此快乐强调的契约,为了供应这个颤栗的白痴,统辖精神分析的领域的颤栗的白痴。

It is in an analogical way and by playing on proportion that there steals
away what is approached about enjoyment along the path of surplus
enjoying.

用一种类比的方式,凭借玩弄这个比例,这个比例偷走掉所被接近的东西,关于享乐,沿着剩余享乐的途径。

It is through this point, at least that by tackling things along the
starting path that we have taken, we see here that we have a way in that
experience justifies. The question no doubt is not without interest as
regards the way a certain renunciation functions in Pascal. But do not go
too quickly. To treat those who have struggled with this logic without
knowing it as universally masochistic, this is the order of short circuiting
where there is designated what I called in this field blackguardism that
turns into stupidity.

通过这个点,至少凭借克服事情,沿着我们採取得这个开始的途径,我们在此看见,这是能够自圆其说的,我们对于那个经验拥有某种的方式。无可置疑,这个问题并不是每有興趣,关于在巴斯卡,某种的捨弃发挥功能的方始。但是请你们不要进行太快。为了处理那些曾经奋斗这个逻辑的人们,他们并不知道它,作为普世的受虐狂。这是短路流通的秩序。在那里,我所谓的放荡主义的领域被指明,这个放荡主义主义转变成为愚蠢。

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

From an other to the Other 56

September 9, 2015

From an other to the Other 56
从他者到大他者

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Let us not leave our Pascal because, on the little paper where what he is
working on is an articulation, therefore there is no need for it to be
destined for someone else in order for the exchanges to have a value that
is not persuasive but logically constructive. People have seen very clearly
in our day that, for certain problems, there is a way to resolve them where
the number of attempts counts. Namely, at the end of how many attempts
one party has the last word. If he wins because of what one could call, but
purely retrospectively, a mistake by the other party, it is clear that the test
will consist in connection with the other party in a more risky response.
But that, if the result is the same we can attribute to a logical articulation, I
mean one that is accepted. It is enough to define it at the start, by way of a
demonstration, which would be articulated as follows:

让我们离开我们的巴斯卡。因为在这张小纸上,他正在研究的东西是一种表达。因此,没有需要让它被注定给某个其他的人,为了让这些改变拥有价值,这个价值虽然不具说服力,但是结构合逻辑。在我们的时代,人们非常清楚地看见,对于某些的难题,有一个方法来解决它们,在企图的数字可以计算的地方。换句话说,在多少的企图结束之后,某一派的人拥有最后话语权。假如他赢,因为我们能够说的东西,但是纯粹是反弹地,由另外一派的人都错误。显而易见地,这个测试在于关系另外一派,处于更加冒险的回应。但是,假如结果是相同,我们能够归属给逻辑的表达,我指的是被接受的表达。我们只有从开始定义它就足够了,凭借展示,它将会被表达如下:

( l – o ) o 1-
( a o – |) o 3
( 2 – 3&yo^
( f t – 1 ) 0 *
( f – * o ) 0 C
!•+ O
( I t o )
( l+ o )
(3 tXo)
( f r S o )
($ t f t .y
V
httpi//wWwTlacaniniirelain&cc
± OC>
com
0 jL
l – o – o 1 1 -Hi- -k
a-3 o =0*
Z + o
3-Uc- ^
.. –
22.1.69 VIII 10
It is a pity that people forget at an epoch, ours, which has very well been
able to codify the laws of this function of yes or no, refutable yes or no,
and to notice that it opens up a greater field than the pure and simply
demonstrable. It is in this way – 1 pointed it out, I already announced it,
initiated it the last time – that Pascal’s process, the one that first of all
made him sound out with regard to a pure “heads or tails” what is rational
in the engagement of betting something in life which is precisely not
defined against something that is at least an infinity of lives qualified,
without specifying what they mean, as indefinitely happy. But perhaps it
would be worthwhile, if we come after him, for us to re-question the
(102) signs. We see that they are capable of delivering up something that
necessarily specifies the sense.

很可惜,人们忘记,在一个时代,我们的时代,曾经非常能够将“是”或“否”的功能的法则符码化。可反驳的“是”或“否”。并且注意到,它展开一个更大的领域,比起纯粹而单纯可以证明的东西。就是以这种方式,我指出来—我上一次已经宣告它,开启它。巴斯卡的过程,首先让他表达的这个过程,关于纯粹的是“头或尾巴”。在参与赌博生命中的某件东西时,理性的东西,那确实并不是被定义,对抗某件至少是被给予品质的生命的永恒的东西。而没有指明它们是什么意思,作为不明确的快乐。但是,或许,这将是值得的,假如我们追随他,让我们重新质疑这些符号。我们看见,他们能够递交某件必然指明是意义的东西。

This indeed is what we are in the process of carrying out at the level of
these signs. And we perceive that if we lay hold of the o whose value we
still do not know but only what it generates as a series in its relationship to
1, we see a series, nothing more. And one might even say that the
question of what is involved in o and 1 as such, as terms set up in some
way or other, even mathematically, does not have a sense. It is not like
when it is a matter of defining whole numbers and what one can do with
them, neutral elements. This 1 has nothing to do with the 1 of
multiplication. Supplementary actions are necessary to put them to use.

这的确是我们现在正在实践的处境,处于这些符号的层次。我们感知,假如我们掌握这个o,它的价值,我们依旧不知道,但是仅知道它作为系列产生的东西,在它跟1的关系,我们看见一个系列,没有别的东西。我们甚至说,在0与1所被牵涉的东西的问题,作为它们自身,作为被建立的术语,用某种的方式,甚至数学的方式。它并没有意义。它并不像是,当它是一件定义整数的事情,我们能够处理它的东西,中立的元素。这个1跟乘法的这个1,没有丝毫关系。补充的行动是必要的,为了利用它们。

Nor is the o. The o and the 1 are everywhere, everywhere there is the
relation of l/o, namely, in the whole series. This is precisely the interest
of starting from it because the only reason that requires us to start from it
is that it is starting from them that we write. In any real whatsoever that
appears to correspond to this scale, they have nowhere a place. Only
without them we would not be able to write this scale. It is starting from
it, from this scale, that I can allow myself to image, starting from another
writing, also the most simple, we remain, it seems, within our limits,
within those of the unary trait. Except for the fact that we are going to
prolong it indefinitely, to try at least to prolong it indefinitely.

这个0也丝毫没有关系。这个0与这个1在每个地方,每个地方都有1/0的关系。换句话说,整个的系列。这确实是从它开始的这个興趣,因为唯一的理由,要求我们从它开始。我们书写,就是从它开始。在任何的实在界,似乎回应这个量计的实在界,它们根本就没有一席之地。只是假如没有它们,我们将不能够书写这个量计。就是从它开始,从这个量计,我才能够让我自己想像,从另外一个书写开始,那也是最简单,似乎,我们始终在我们的限制之内。在独异性特征的限制之内。除了这个事实:我们将要不明确地延长它,至少不明确地延长它。

22.1.69
Here is the o, here is the 1. We are not obliged to measure them for them
to be correctly written. Here also, I think that you will excuse me for
abbreviating and for saying that we project this o onto this field
considered in its function as 1. What we have just written indicates to us
that what will be here will be o2. The folding back of the o2 gives us here
an o ; the folding back of o gives us here an o . I hope you are following.
You see then that there is going to be added together by operations that go
in a certain direction all the even powers of o: o2, o4, o6. And that here
there are going to be reproduced, because if we refer the o, we will have
o5,the sequence of the odd powers o3,o5,o7.

在此就是这个0,在此就是这个1。我们并没有被强迫要测量它们,为了让它们正确地被书写。在此也是,为认为你们将原谅我,因为缩短,因为说我们将这个投射到它作为1的功能被考虑到这个领域。我们刚刚书写的东西跟我们指示,将会在这里的东西,将是02.。这个02的折叠回去在此给我们一个0,0的折叠回去给我们在此的一个0。我希望你们跟随过来。然后你们看见,将会被增加一快,凭借一些运作,朝著某个方向的运作,0的所有的偶数次元,0,02,04,06。在此,将会被复制,因为假如我们提到这个0,我们将会有05,奇数次元的系列,03,05,07 .

(103) It is very easy to see that in this way, we will find at the converging
meeting point of these powers, one even the other odd, the measure of o as
a total for all the even powers, o itself being of course excluded. The
measure o as a sum of all the odd powers of o, o and o giving a total of
1. Namely, that it is by this very operation of separated addition of even
powers on the one hand and odd powers that we effectively find the
measure of this field of the Other as 1, namely, something different to its
pure and simple inscription as unary trait.

我们很容易看出,用这个方式,我们将会在汇集处,发现这些次元的相会点,一个偶数,另外一个奇数。0的测量作为所有的偶数次元的总和,0的本身当然被排除。0的测量作为是0的奇数次元的总和。0与0产生1的总和。换句话说,凭借这个一方面是偶数次元与奇数次元的分开的增加的运作。我们有效地发现大他者作为1的这个领域的测量。换句话说,某件东西不同于它的纯粹而单纯的铭记,作为独异性特征。

CjO v*”i
0 * 0
o r 0 <
£ 0 *
o z -*■ 0
I only obtained this result by taking in isolation the proportional
foundation of o. But if I take its development in the sense of growth, you
easily see that by simply adding these already growing powers, if I were
to tell you what this gives, at the moment that we can add the i/o to some
power until there has emerged o100. It is very easy to make a calculation,
if you have a page, and this takes no more than ten minutes, not about
what l/o100 is but the addition of the whole series. There are very well
known and very easy formulae one can see that it is
2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

我仅是获得这个结果,凭借孤立地採用0的比例的基础。但是,假为我採用它的发展,用成长的意义。你们很容易看出,凭借增加这些已经正在成长的次元,假如我告诉你们这给出什么,在我们能够增加这个1/0到某个次元的时刻,直到0100次元的出现。我们很容易做一个估算,假如你们拥有一页。这将仅需要十分钟。不是关于1/01000是什么,而是整个系列的增加。众所周知的一个容易的公式,我们能够看见,它是:2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

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