Anxiety 257 Jacques Lacan

Anxiety 257

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

For stories things function differently. But what does Piaget
call stories? I assure you that he has a way of transcribing the story of Niobe which is a pure scandal.

對於故事而言，事情的功用不一樣。但是皮亞傑所謂的故事是什麼呢？我告訴你們，他擁有一種特別的方式，來書寫純粹是醜聞的尼奧比的故事。

Because it does not seem even to occur to him that in speaking about Niobe, one is speaking about a myth and that there is perhaps a dimension of myth which imposes itself, which absolutely clings to the simple term which is put forward under this proper name Niobe, and that to transform it into a sort of emollient hogwash – I would ask you to consult this text which is simply incredible – one is proposing perhaps to the child something within his range, which is simply something which signals a profound deficit in the experimenter, Piaget himself, with regard to what are the functions of language.

他甚至沒有想到，當我們談論到尼奧比時，我們是談論有關一個神話。可能會有一種神話的向度賦加在自己之上。這個神話緊附著這個被提出的術語，以「尼奧比」這個專有名詞。為了要將它轉換成為大家可以接受的通俗作品，我要求你們參照這篇真是匪夷所思的文本。我們或許正在跟小孩建議某件他能夠理解的東西。這個東西僅是某件指明實驗者一個深刻的缺點，皮亞傑自己，關於語言的功用是什麼。

If one is proposing a myth, let it be one, and not this vague little story: “Once upon a time there was a lady called Niobe who had twelve sons and twelve daughters.

假如我們正在建議一個神話，就讓它當著是一個神話，而不是這個模糊的小故事：「從前，有一位女士名叫尼奧比。她有十二個兒子跟十二個女兒」。

She met a fairy who had only one son and no daughter; now the
lady mocked the fairy because she had only one boy; the fairy
then became angry and tied the lady to a rock. The lady cried
for ten years, and then she was changed into a stream, her tears had made a stream which still flows”.

她遇見一位仙女。這位仙女只有一個兒子，沒有女兒。現在這位女士嘲笑這位仙女，因為她只有一位男孩。仙女於是生氣起來，將女士綁到岩石上。女士哭泣了十年，然後她被轉變成為一條溪流，她的眼淚已經成為現在依舊在流的溪流。

This has really no equivalent except the two other stories that Piaget proposes, that of the little black boy who breaks his cake on the way out and melts the pat of butter on the return journey, and the still worse one of children transformed into swans, who remain all their lives separated from their parents because of this curse, but who, when they return, not alone find their (11) parents dead, but regaining their first shape – this is not indicated in the mythical dimension – in regaining their first shape, they have nevertheless aged. I do not know if there is a single myth which allows the aging process to continue during a
transformation.

確實沒有故事可以跟它相比，除了皮亞傑建議的其他兩個的故事。一個是黑人小孩的故事。這個小孩在外出途中掉落蛋糕，回家途中，幾塊奶油融化掉。更糟糕的是，有一位小孩被轉變成為天鵝。這些小孩變成的天鵝終生都跟他們的父母分開，因為這個詛咒。但是當他們回來時，他們發現不但父母死了，而且他們恢復他們原先的形狀。（這並不是這個神話向度所指示的。）當他們恢復他們原有的形狀時，他們已經衰老了。我不知道是否有一個神話，在轉變中，讓衰老的過程繼續下去。

In a word, the invention of these stories of
Piaget have one thing in common with those of Binet in that they reflect the profound wickedness of every pedagogical position. I apologise to you for wandering off into this parenthesis.

總之，皮亞傑杜撰這些故事，跟賓涅特的故事有一個共通的地方。他們都反映出每一個教學立場惡作劇的一面。我跟你們抱歉，因為散漫無章地閒扯。

Let us come back to my explanations. At least you will have
grasped in it this dimension noted by Piaget himself of this sort of wastage, of entropy, as I might put, of comprehension which is going to be necessarily degraded by the very fact of the explanation being necessarily verbal.

讓我們回到我的解釋。至少，你們將已經理解，皮亞傑自己注意到的這個向度，這種消耗物的向度，結果不明的向度，我不妨說，理解的向度。當我們必然是使用文辭來解釋時，這種向度的意涵必然受到侵蝕。

He himself notes to his great surprise that there is an enormous contrast between the explanations, when what is involved is an explanatory one like that, and what happens in his “stories”, “stories”, that I repeat I put in inverted commas. Because it is very probable that if the “stories” confirm his theory regarding the entropy, if I may express myself thus, of comprehension, it is precisely because they are not “stories”, and that, if they were “stories”, the true myth, there could probably be no wastage.

他自己也大吃一驚地注意到，這些解釋之間有一個巨大的對比，因為牽涉到內容是像那樣的一個解釋的內容。我重述的這個「故事」所發生的事情，我用引號所括弧的「故事」。證實他關於理解的結果不明的理論，容我這樣說。這確實是因為它們並不是「故事」，就算將它們歸屬為「故事」，那是真實的神話故事：可能沒有消耗物。

In any case, I for my part propose a little sign to you, it is that, when one of these children, when he has to repeat the story of Niobe, makes emerge, at the point that Piaget tells us that the lady had been tied to a rock – never, in any form, has the myth of Niobe articulated such a moment – of course, it is easy, playing, you will be told, on something misheard and on a pun, but why precisely this one makes emerge the dimension of a rock which has a stain, restoring the dimension that in my previous seminar I made emerge for you as being essential for the victim of sacrifice, that of not having any. But let us leave it.

無論如何，就我而言，我跟你們建議一個小的跡象。當其中一位小孩必須重述尼奧比的故事時，在皮亞傑告訴我們，女士曾經被綁在岩石上，他會使石頭的向度出現。（尼奧比的神話從來沒有在這樣的時刻被表達），當然，要以訛傳訛，或玩弄雙關語也是很容易。但是為什確實這個會使具有污點的岩石的向度出現，恢復這個向度。在我先前的講座，我讓這個向度出現在你們面前，當著對於犧牲奉獻的受害者，最基本的東西，當著述沒有任何受害者的向度。

It is of course not a proof, but simply a suggestion.
I return to my explanation and to the remark of Piaget that,
despite the defects of the explanation, I mean the fact that the explainer explains badly, the one to whom he is explaining
understands much better than the explainer, by his inadequate
explanations, bears witness to having understood. Of course here the explanation always arises: he himself does the work again.

當然，這並不是一個證據，但是確實是一個建議。我回到我的解釋，回到皮亞傑的談論，儘管解釋的缺點，我的意思是，事實上，解釋者解釋得很糟糕。他針對解釋的人，瞭解得比解釋者還要清楚。但是他的不夠充份的解釋，見證到他曾經瞭解。當然，在此，解釋總是會發生。他自己再一次做這件工作。

Because how does he define the rate of understanding between
children? What the reproducer has understood？What the explainer has understood？ (12) I do not know if you notice that there is one thing here that is never spoken about, it is what Piaget himself has understood!

因為他如何定義小孩之間的這個瞭解的比率？復述者瞭解多少？解釋者瞭解多少？我不知道是否你們注意到，在此有一件事情從來沒有被談論過，那就是：皮亞傑自己瞭解多少？

It is nevertheless essential, because we do not leave the children to spontaneous language, namely to see what they understand.

可是，這個問題很重要，因為我們讓小孩接受自動自發的語言，並不是為了看出，他們瞭解什麼。

Now it is clear that what Piaget seems not to have seen, is that his own explanation, from the point of view of anyone at all, of some other third person, cannot be understood at all. For as I told you earlier, if this little blocked tube here is switched on, thanks to something that Piaget gives all its importance to, the operation of the fingers which make the tap turn in such a way that the water can flow, does that mean that it flows?

顯而易見的，皮亞傑似乎沒有注意到的是，他自己的解釋，從任何人的觀點，從某個第三者的觀點，都無法被理解。我早先曾經告訴過你們，假如在此這個被阻塞的小水管被轉開，由於皮亞傑賦予它重要性的某件東西，手指頭的運作使水龍頭這樣地轉動，水就能夠流出來。那就意味著水流出來嗎？

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com