Anxiety 47 Jacques Lacan

Anxiety 47

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

Seminar 7: Wednesday 9 January 1963

Anxiety is the signal of certain moments of this relationship.
This is wnat we are going to strive to show you more about today.

焦慮是這個關係的某時刻的訊號。這就是今天我們正努力要顯示給你們看到。

It is clear that this supposes a further step in the situation of specifying what we mean by this object o. I mean, we designate this object precisely by o. I point out that this algebraic notation has its function, it is like a thread designed to allow us to recognise its identity under the different incidences in which it appears to us. Its notation is algebraic, o, precisely to respond to this goal of pure mapping out of identity, it having already been posited by us that the mapping out by a word, by a signifier, is always and can only be a metaphor, namely leaving in a way, outside the signification induced by its introduction, the function of the signifier itself.

顯而易見，這個訊號假定我們應該繼續向前一步，當我們明確指出，我們提到這個小客體0，是什麼意思。我的意思是，我們指明這個客體，確實是用字母0表示。我指出來，這個代數的標記0有它的功用。它就像是一條線索，被設計要讓我們認出，它出現在我們面前的不同的情境的身份。它的標記是代數的0，確實是要回應純粹辨識身份的這個目標，當它已經被我們提出，使用一個字，一個意符。這些總是，而且只能夠是一個比喻。換句話說，它會以某種方法，在它的介紹所引導的意義之外，脫離這個意符本身的功用。

The term good though it generates the signification of good, is not good by itself and far from it, for it generates evil at the same time.

「善」這個術語，雖然產生「善」的意義，它本身並不善，一點也不善，因為它同時也產生邪惡。

In the same way to designate the little o by the term object is, as you see, a metaphorical usage, since it is borrowed precisely from this subject-object relationship from which the term object is constituted, which no doubt is suitable for designating the general function of objectivity; and this object, of which we have to speak under the term o, is precisely an object which is outside any possible definition of objectivity.

用樣地，指明這個小小的0，作為「客體」的術語，你們看出，它是一個比喻的用法，它確實是從這個主體與客體的關係。借用過來。客體這個術語，被建構在這個關係之上，無可置疑的，它適合於指明客體性的一般運作。我們必須以0這個術語談論到底這個客體，確實是一個客體，外在於客體性的任何可能的定義。

I will not speak of what is happening to objectivity in the field of science, I am speaking about our science in general,

我所要談論的，並不是科學領域的客體性發生的情形。我正在談論的是我們一般性的科學。

you know that since Kant a number of misfortunes have befallen it, a number of misfortunes which all arise, in the heart of this object, from having wanted to give too great a share to certain, “obvious things”, and especially those which belong to the field of transcendental aesthetics, like for example holding as obvious the independence, the separation between the dimensions of space and those of time was put to the test in the elaboration of the scientific object or came into collision with this something that is expressed quite incorrectly as a crisis of scientific reason:

你們知道，自從康得以降，許多不幸的事情曾經降落在它身上。許多的不幸事件都會發生，在這個客體的核心，當我們想要給予太多的分享，給某些「顯而易見的事情」，特別是那些屬於超驗美學的領域。例如，擁有明顯的獨立，以及這個空間向度跟時間向度的隔離，受到考驗，當我們在建構科學的客體時。要不然，它就是個這個某件東西互相衝突。這個某件東西，相當不正確地被表達，作為是科學理由的危機。

in short this whole effort which had to be undertaken in order to see that (4) precisely these two registers of the spatial and temporal dimensions could not, at a certain level of physics, continue to be held as independent variables, a surprising fact, which seems to have posed to some minds indissoluble problems which do not seem nevertheless to be all that worthy of bringing us to a halt, and if we see that it is precisely to the status of the object that we should have recourse to give to the symbolic its exact place in the constitution, in the expression of experience, not to make risky extrapolations from the imaginary into the symbolic.

總之，我們必須從事這整個的努力，為了要看出，確實是空間及時間向度的這兩個銘記，在物理的某個層次上，無法繼續被認為是獨立的變數。這是令人大吃一驚的事實，對於一些思想家，它似乎形成某些無法解決的難題。可是，這些難題似乎並不是那麼值得我們暫停下來。假如我們看出，我們應訴諸於這個客體的地位，來給予這個符號，它在建構中，在經驗的表達中的確實的位置，不是為了要冒險的推斷，從想像界，進入意符界。

In truth, the time that is involved, at the level at which there may be posed the problems that come from derealising it in a fourth dimension, has nothing to do with the time which, in intuition, seems indeed to posit itself as a sort of
unsurpassable shock of the real, namely something which appears to all of us, and that taking it as an obvious fact, as something which, in the symbolic, could be expressed by an independent variable is simply a categorical error at the beginning.

事實上，所牽涉到的時間，在某個層次，來自一個第四向度，使時間非真實化的這些難題，可能會被提出。但是它跟直覺的這個時間沒有絲毫關係。直覺的時間似乎提出它自己，作為一種無法被超越的真實界的震撼。換句話說，它是某件出現在我們眾人面前的東西，我們把它當著是一個明顯的事實，在意符界，當著是能夠用一個獨立的變數來表達的東西。從一開頭，它在範疇上，僅是一個錯誤。

There is the same difficulty, as you know, at a certain limit of physics, with the body, and here I would say that we are on our own ground, because it is effectively on what has not been done, on what has not been done at the beginning as regards a correct status of the experience that we have here our word to say.

眾所皆知，在物理的某個層次上，對於身體而言，也會有相同的困難。在此，我想要說，我們都是有自己的立場，因為我們的立場都是有效地被建立在未曾完成的基礎上。這個基礎從一開始，就一直沒有被完成，關於這個經驗的正確的地位，我們在此用文字表達的經驗。

We have our word to say since, our experience posits and establishes that no intuition, that no transparency, that no
Durchsichtigbarkeit – since it is Freud’s term – which is founded purely and simply on the intuition of consciousness, can be held to be original and therefore valid and therefore cannot constitute the starting point of any transcendental aesthetics, for the simple reason that the subject cannot be in any way situated in an exhaustive fashion in consciousness, since it is firstly and primarily unconscious.

我們擁有我們的文字可以表達，因為我們的經驗提出並且證明：沒有直覺，沒有透明，沒有Durchsichtigbarkeit（這是佛洛伊德的術語）。它的基礎純粹而且僅是依靠意識的直覺，能夠被認為是具有原創力，因此是有效的，因此不能夠構成任何超越美學的這個起始點。理由很簡單：無論如何，生命的主體，不能被定位在意識的有限的層次，因為它首先而且主要是無意識。

To this must be added, that if it is firstly and primarily
unconscious, it is because in the constitution of the subject, we must firstly and primarily hold to be prior to this constitution, a certain incidence which is that of the signifier.

我們還必須增加一點，假如生命的主體首先而且主要是無意識，那是因為在生命主體的建構中，我們必須首先而且主要地認為，會有某種的意外，優先於這個建構的存在。這個意外，就是生命的主體作為一個意符的意外存在。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pcome.com.tw