雄伯手記991129
月底W終於回來。由於再隔一天，講堂才有聽經的活動，又是難得的冬日陽光璨爛的日子，就邀她出去兜兜風。
我們驅車朝著花東公路前行。沿途欣賞風景之際，W突然自言自語起來：「我是頓機！」
「頓機？」我困惑地問。
「不是牛頓的頓。」
「你若是指佛教有所謂的頓教跟漸教之分，那個頓是牛頓的頓沒錯。」
「我們講堂講的是頓機漸機，不是頓教漸教。你不要老是跟我灌輸一些錯誤的觀念，害我在講堂老是受到挨駡！」她突然生氣起來。
「是是，你們講的是頓機漸機。」
「我是漸機。」
「咦，你原先不是說你是頓機。」
「你不要老是捉我的毛病！」
我終於明白，為什麽她剛才會說，不是牛頓的頓。這不是單純的一時口誤，而是在她欠缺自信心的潛意識層，「頓」與「鈍」的同音異義產生換喻的混淆。
Anxiety 51
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
Have we distinguished it, isolated it, designated it, because it must be (11) considered as distinct from what functioned before, because what was functioning before, was precisely that this process should not go towards its discharge before reaching a certain level of the raising of the stimulus? It is then an exercise of the pleasure function tending to get close to its own limit, namely to the arousal of pain.
我們如何來區別它，孤立它，因為它必須被認為是不同於以前的功用，因為以前的功用，確實就是，這個過程不應該朝著它的發洩進展，在到達某個程度的刺激的勃起之前？因此，它是一種歡樂功用的運用，為了靠近它自己的極限，換句話說，到達痛苦的引起。
So where does this feedback come from? No one dreams of telling
us. But I would point out to you, that not I, but the very
people who, psychoanalytic doctrine tells us, should tell us
normally that the Other must intervene here, because what
constitutes a normal genital function is presented to us as
linked to oblativity. Let us be told then how the function of giving as such intervenes hic et nunc when one is fucking!
所以，這個回饋來自哪里？沒有人夢想要告訴我。但是我要跟你們指出的是，不是我，而是精神分析的信條告訴我們，那些人應該正式地告訴我們，大它者在這裏必須要介人。因為一個正式的性器官的功用，組成的內涵被呈現給我們，充當跟對於神的奉獻有關。讓我們能夠聽到這樣的說法：作為給予我們這樣的功用，它是如何介入，當我們正在交媾的時候？
This, in any case, has indeed its interest; for either it is
valid, or it is not; and it is certain that in some way there
must intervene the function of the Other.
無論如何，這確實有耐人尋味的一面。因為，無論這種說法是否能夠成立，可確定的是，在某方面，大它者的功用必須介入。
In any case, since an important part of our speculations concern what is called the choice of the love object, and since it is in the disturbances of this love life that there lies an important part of analytic experience, since in this field the reference to the primordial object, to the mother, is held to be capital, a distinction is imposed as to where one should locate this frequent incidence of the fact that for some people the result is that they cannot function as regards orgasm except with prostitutes, and that for others it is only with other subjects chosen in a different register.
無論如何，我們的推理有一個重要的部份，關係到所謂的愛的客體的選擇。就在這個愛的生活的騷擾裏，精神分析經驗的一個重要的部份就在那裏。在這個領域，對於原始客體，對於母親的指稱，被認為是最重要的。在此有一個明確的區別，關於我們應該在哪里找出這個事實經常發生意外的位置。對於一些人，結果是，他們無法發揮達到高潮的功用，除了就是跟妓女。還有一些人，只有跟不同銘記的其他生命的主體，才能達到勃起的高潮。
As we know from our analyses – the relationship to the prostitute is almost directly meshed into the reference to the mother. In other cases, the deteriorations, degradations of Liebesleben, of the love life, are linked to the opposition between the maternal body which evokes a certain type of relationship to the subject, and the woman of a certain different type in so far as she becomes the support, is equivalent to the phallic object.
我們從我們的的精神分析學知道，跟妓女的這個關係，幾乎直接跟母親的指稱有關。在其他的情況，愛情生命的惡化及墮落，是跟這個對立有關：母親的身體召喚某種跟生命主體的關係，而不同種類的女人則變成這個支持，因為它相當等於是陽具的客體。
How does all of this come about? This picture, this schema
(pi), the one that I have once more reproduced here on the upper part of the board allows us to designate what I mean.
這樣的事情是如何發生？這個畫面，這個基模，我再一次複製在黑板的上方的這個基模，使我們能夠指明什麼是我的意思。
Is the mechanism, the articulation produced at the level of the (12) attraction of the object, which becomes or not invested for us with this glamour, with this desirable brilliance, with this colour – this is how sexuality is designated in Chinese – which means that the object becomes stimulating precisely at the level of excitation?
這個機械學，這個以客體的吸引的層次產生的表達，對於我們而言，它成為或被投注這個吸引的魅力，用這個令人垂涎的璨爛，用這個顏色。這是性愛在中文被指明的方式。它意味著，客體變得刺激撩人，確實就是在這個引人興奮的層次。
This is why this preferential colour will be situated, I would
say, at the same level of signal which can also be that of
anxiety, I am saying then at this level here i'(o). So then it will be a matter of knowing why, and I am indicating it
immediately so that you can see where I want to get to: by the branching off of the original erogenous cathexis from what is here qua o present and hidden at the same time.
這就是為什麼這個受到偏愛的顏色，將會被定位在焦慮的訊號的相同層次，容我這樣說，在這個自我理想的魅影意象的層次。因此，問題是要知道為什麼。我現在立刻跟你們指示出來，這樣能們能夠看到，我的目標是什麽。我要將原初的性感敏銳地帶，從既出現又隱藏的小客體本身，分散開來。
Or that which functions as a sorting element in the choice of love object is produced here at the level of the framing by an Einschränkung, by this narrowing directly referred by Freud to the mechanism of the ego, by this limitation of the field of interest which excludes a certain type of object precisely in function of its relationship with the mother.
那些在愛情的客體的選擇上，充當分類元素的功用，在此被產生，在這個「限制」框架的層次，被佛洛伊德直接指稱為自我的機械學的窄化，被這個興趣領域的限制。這個興趣的領域排除某種的客體，當它充當跟母親的關係的功用。
The two mechanisms are, as you see, at the two ends of this
chain, which begins at inhibition and which finishes with anxiety whose diagonal line I marked out in the table that I gave you at the beginning of this year. We have a right to distinguish two different mechanisms in inhibition and anxiety and precisely to conceive of how both one and the other can intervene from top to bottom of every sexual manifestation.
這兩個機械學，如你們所看到的，處於這個意符鎖鏈的兩個末端。它們開始于壓抑，結束於焦慮。焦慮的對角線，在今年初我給你們的表格上，我跟你們畫出來。我們有權利來區別壓抑跟焦慮，這兩個不同的機械學。這樣我們才能構想，它們彼此如何能夠介入，從每一個性愛的展示的頂端到底端。
I add the following that, when I say from top to bottom, I am including in it what in our experience is called transference.
我補充以下的內容：當我說從頂端到底端，我是將我們精神分析學所謂的移情，包括在裏面。
Recently I heard an allusion being made to the fact that we in our Society are people who know a good deal about transference.
最近我聽到有人間接跟我提到一個事實：對於移情，在我們精神分析協會中，我們精神分析師是最耳熟能詳的人
To tell the truth, since a certain work on transference which was done before our Society was founded, I know only one other work which has been evoked, namely that of the year that I devoted to it with you here.
坦白說，某些有關移情的研究著作，在我們的精神分析協會被創辦以前，就已經完成。我只知道有某一部著作曾經被引用，換句話說，今年的這部著作，我在這裏跟你專注討論過。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 50
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
And this moment, this phenomenological turning point, here connects up, and allows us to designate the opposition between these two types of object according to their (9) status. When I began to announce the function, the fundamental function in the general establishment of the field of the object, of the mirror stage, what path did I take?
這個時刻，這個現象學的轉捩點，連接起來，並且使我們能夠指明，這兩種客體之間的這個對立，依照他們的地位。當我開始宣佈這個功用，這個基本的功用，在客體的領域的一般性的建立，鏡像階段的建立，我採取的是什麽途徑？
Along the plane of the primary identification, the original miscognition of the subject as a whole in his specular image, then the transitivist reference which is established in his relationship with the imaginary other, his fellow, which makes him always badly separated out from this identity with the other and introduces here mediation, a common object which is an object of rivalry, an object, then, whose status is going to begin from the notion of belonging or not: it belongs to you or it belongs to me.
沿著原初認同的這個層次，生命主體在他的自我理想的意象中作為整體的原先誤認，然後轉移到過渡到，跟想像界的它者，他的同伴的關係，所建立的指稱。這使他總是跟這個認同於大它者，強迫隔離，然後在此介紹仲介，作為一個共同的客體。這是一個敵意的客體，它的地位將要從是否屬於他開始：它屬於你，或是屬於我？
In this field, there are two sorts of objects, the ones that can be shared, and those which cannot be. Those which cannot be, when I see them involved all the same in this domain of sharing, with the other objects, whose status rests entirely on rivalry, this ambiguous rivalry which is at the same time emulation but also agreement, they are priceable objects, they are objects of exchange.
在這個領域，有兩種客體，一種是能夠被分享的客體，還有一種是不能夠被分享的客體。那些不能夠被分享的客體，我看到它們仍然牽涉到這個分享的領域，跟其他的客體。它們的地位完全依靠敵意，這個曖昧的敵意。它既是一種仿效，又是一種敵意。它們是可訂定價位的客體，它們是可交換的客體。
But there are some of them, and if I put the phallus in the forefront, it is of course because it is the most illustrious because of the fact of castration; but there are others, as you know, others which you know, the best-known equivalents of this phallus, those which precede it, the turd, the nipple, there are those perhaps which you know less well, even though they are perfectly visible in analytic literature, and we will try to designate these objects when they enter with recognisable freedom into this field where they have only to do, the field of sharing.
有一些可交換的客體，假如我將陽具擺放在正前面，當然是因為它是最顯著的客體，由於閹割的關係。還有一些其他的客體，眾所皆知，是這個陽具的最著名的相等物。那些在陽具之前的客體，糞便及乳頭。那些你們可能比較不知道的，即使在精神分析學的文獻裏，它們彰彰明甚。我們將設法指明這些客體，當它們自由自在地進入這個領域，它們只需要做的，就是分享的領域。
When they appear, anxiety signals for us the particularity of their status. These objects prior to the constitution of the status of the common object, of the communicable object, of the socialised object, this is what is involved in the o.
當它們出現時，焦慮跟我們指示它們地位的特殊性。這些客體早先於共同客體，可溝通的客體，社會化的客體的地位的建構。這就是在這個小客體牽涉到的東西。
We will name these objects, we will draw up a catalogue of them, which is not of course exhaustive, but perhaps also, let us hope so: already just now, I have named three, I would say that as a first approach to this catalogue, there are only two missing and that the totality corresponds to the five forms of loss, of perte, Verlust, that Freud designates in Inhibitions, symptoms (10) and anxiety, as being the major moments of the apparition of the signal.
我們將命名這些客體，我們將替它們編定一個目錄。當然，這個目錄無法涵蓋一切，但是或許也有可能，容我們這樣希望。剛才，我就已經列舉了三個客體。容我這樣說，作為這個目錄的最初的接近，只有兩個漏失的客體，整體性要對應這個漏失的五種形式。那是佛洛伊德在「壓抑、病徵、及焦慮」一書中所指明，作為訊號成為魅影的主要時刻。
I want, before going any further, to take up another branch of the switch-line which you saw me a little earlier in the process of choosing, to make a remark, whose asides, I believe, will have for you some illuminating aspects.
在繼續進展之前，我想要從事這個轉換線的另外一個脈絡。你們稍早曾經看到我在選擇的過程中，為了要發表一個談論。這個談論雖然離題，我相信對你們，會有頓開茅塞的作用。
Is it not strange, significant of something, that in analytic research, there is manifested a quite different lack to the one I already designated in saying that we have not taken a single step in the physiological question of feminine sexuality.
在精神分析學的研究，會出現一種相當不同的欠缺，不同於我已經指明的那個欠缺，當我說，女人在生理層面的的性愛的問題，我們連一步，都還沒有踏出。這不是很奇怪，而且非常重要的一件事嗎？
We could accuse ourselves of the same failure as regards male
impotence. Because after all, in the process, clearly locatable in its normative phases, of the masculine side of copulation, we are still at the stage of referring ourselves to what can be found in any book of physiology about the process of erection first, then of orgasm.
我們能夠控訴我們自己，因為同樣的失敗，關於男性的性無能。因為畢竟，在這個過程當中，在交媾的男性的這一邊，在它的標準的部份，它很顯然能夠被找出它的位置。可是我們依舊處於這個階段，在任何生理學的書裏，關於陽具要先能勃起，才會有高潮，這是我們參照所能找到的文獻。
The reference to the stimulus-response circuit is, when all is said and done, what we satisfy ourselves with, as if the homology between orgasmic discharge and the motor part of this circuit in any kind of action were acceptable. Of course, we are not at that stage, far from it.
這個刺激與反應的指稱，當一切都說都做了，是我們感到滿足的原因，好像高潮發洩，跟這任何行動的這個迴圈的機動部份，具有同質性，是可以被接受的。當然，我們談論的不是那個層次，根本不是。
Even in Freud – and the problem was in fact raised by him – why in sexual pleasure is the circuit not as elsewhere the shortest circuit to return to the level of minimal
exitation, why is there a Vorlust, a fore-pleasure, as it is
translated, which consists precisely in raising as high as
possible this minimal level?
即使在佛洛伊德，這個難題事實上是他提出：為什麼是在性愛的歡樂，而不是在別的地方，這個刺激與反應的迴圈，是最短的迴圈，回到最小量的退出的層次？為什麼會有前奏的歡樂，如同它所被翻譯，確實是在於將最小量的層次，儘量舉高？
And the intervention of orgasm, namely from what moment is this raising of the level linked as a norm to the preliminary
operation interrupted? Have we in any way given a schema of what intervenes, of the mechanism, if you wish, given a physiological representation of the spoken thing, of what Freud would call the Abfuhrinnervâtionen, the circuit of innervation which is the support of the bringing into play of the discharge?
高潮的介入，換句話說，在什麼時刻，這個舉起的層次被中斷，當它跟初期的運作有名份上的關係？我們有辦法給予一個基模，描繪是什麼東西介入這個機械結構？假如我們考慮到，我們所談論的這個東西，具有生理的表徵。這就是佛洛伊德所謂的「神經分佈」的迴圈。這個神經分佈是運作高潮發洩的支持。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 49
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
Do we not have here precisely, the sociological function of the phallus, provided, of course, that we take it here at the level of the capital letter, at the level of the ^> ,in which it incarnates the most alienating function of the subject in
(7) exchange itself, in social exchange. The subject as he is involved in it, is reduced to being the bearer of the phallus.
我們在此所擁有的，難道不確實就是陽具的社會的功用，當然，條件是我們在此看待它，是以大寫字母P的層次。在這個層次，它具體表現生命主體，在社會的交換中，以自己當交換品時，最為疏離的功用，牽涉到社會交換的生命的主體，被淪落到作為陽具的負載者。
This is what makes castration necessary for a socialised society in which there are, as Claud Lévi-Strauss has pointed out to us, prohibitions of course, but also and above all preferences.
這就是為什麽，閹割成為需要，對於一個社會化的社會。如列文、史特勞斯曾經跟我們指出的，在那裏當然會有禁制存在，而且尤其是，有偏愛存在。
This is the true secret, it is the truth of what Claud Lévi-
Strauss makes turn around the exchange of women in the structure. Beneath the exchange of women, the phalluses are going to fulfill them. It must not be seen that it is the phallus itself which is at stake.
這是真正的秘密。這是列文、史特勞斯所發現的真理：在原始社會結構，女人作為交換的客體。在女人作為交換的客體下，陽具將要填補它們。我們必須看出，岌岌可危的是陽具的本身。
If one sees it, there is anxiety. I could here branch off onto more than one track. It is clear that with this reference, we have arrived, all of a sudden, at the castration complex. Well then, by God, why not engage ourselves in it.
假如我們看到它，就會有焦慮存在。我在此能夠擴充到不僅一個軌道。顯而易見的，以這個指稱，突然地，我們到達閹割情結。嗯，我的天，為什麼我們不探討一下閹割情結呢？
Castration, as I have frequently reminded you, the castration of the complex, is not a castration. That is something everyone
knows, no-one has the slightest doubt about it, and, a curious
thing, people do not dwell on it. It is all the same of
interest, this image, this phantasy. Where is it to be situated?
閹割，我時常提醒過你們，情結的閹割不是一種閹割。那是每一個人都知道的事情。對它，沒有任何人有任何的懷疑。耐人尋味的是，人們並沒有去詳述它。可是，這個意象，這個陽具，依舊令人感到興趣。它應該被定位在哪里呢？
Between the imaginary and the symbolic, what is happening? Is it the gelding which is well known from the ferocious practices of war? It is undoubtedly closer to it than to the fabrication of eunuchs.
在想像界跟意符界之間，發生什麼事情呢？從這兩個世界慘烈的戰鬥過程，眾所周知的是這個被閹割的馬？無可置疑的，被閹割的馬的意象，比起太監的被閹割的構想，更加令人驚心動魄。
The mutilation of the penis, of course, is what is evoked by the phantastical threats emanating from the father or from the mother, depending on the epoch of psychoanalysis. “If you do that, it will be cut off you”. Moreover it is necessary that this accent of cutting should be given all its importance for there to be sustained the practice of circumcision to which the last time, you heard me make what I might call prophylactic
references, namely the remark that the psychic incidence of
circumcision is far from being unequivocal, and that I am not the only one to have noted it.
當然，陰莖的被切除，是從父親或從母親所發出的幻影的威脅，所召喚出來，依靠精神分析的時代而定。「假如你這樣做，你那個將會被切割掉。」而且，對於這個切割的強調點，應該被給予它的重要性，這樣割包皮的做法，才能夠被維持。上一次的演講，你們曾經聽過我提到所謂的預防性的措施。換句話說，割包皮引起的心理意外反應，並不是那麼天經地義。我並不是唯一注意到這一點的人。
One of the last works, a remarkable one no doubt, on the subject, that of Nunberg, on circumcision conceived in terms of its
relations with bisexuality, is there to remind us of something
which already a good number of other authors had introduced
before him, that circumcision has just as much the goal, the aim, (8) of reinforcing, by isolating it, the term of masculinity in the man as to provoke the effects, at least in their anxiety-provoking incidence, as to provoke the effects described as those of the castration complex.
Nevertheless, it is precisely this incidence, this relationship, this common denominator of the cut which allows us to bring into the field of castration, the operation of circumcision, of Beschneidung, of arel to say it in Hebrew.
無可置疑的，有關這個主題過去幾年的著作，其中很傑出的一本是紐伯格的書。它以跟雙性戀的關係來構想割包皮的問題。它在此是用來提醒我們，某件已經是之前許多其他作者介紹過的東西。他將切割包皮孤立出來，強調男人身上具有陽剛之氣。至少，這跟在引起他們焦慮的意外事件中，為了激發它的效果，有相同的目的，為了激發被描述為閹割情結的效果。可是確實就是這個意外事件，這個關係，這個切割的共同指標，使我們能夠將切割包皮的運作，帶進閹割的領域，希伯來文稱之為「行割禮」。
Is there not also here a little something which might allow us to take a further step about the function of castration anxiety？
在此難道沒有某件東西，可以讓我們更進一步探討閹割焦慮的功用嗎？
Well then, it is the following, the term which we lack: “I am going to cut it off you”, says the Mammy who is described as castrating. Fine, and afterwards, where will the Wiwimacher, as it is called in the observation of little Hans, be? Well then, if we admit that this threat, always presentified by our experience, is carried out, it will be there, in the operational field of the common object, of the exchangeable object, it will be there, in the hands of the mother who has cut it off. And it is indeed this that would be strange in the situation.
嗯，就在底下，我們所欠缺的術語！「我將要跟你切割掉它」，被描述為切割者的媽嗎說。很好，後來，在所謂的小漢斯的觀察中，這個「可以尿尿的小東西」是什麼？嗯，假如我們承認，這個威脅總是由我們的經驗呈現出，它被執行，它會在那裏，在共同客體的運作的領域，在切割它的母親的手中。確實就是這個，在這個情境中，讓人感到奇異。
It often happens that our subjects have dreams where they have
the object in their hands, either because it has been broken off by a gangrene, or because some partner, in the dream, has taken the trouble to carry out the cutting operation, or by some correlative accident or other that is diversely nuanced with uncanniness and anxiety, a particularly disturbing characteristic of the dream, well then, here, to situate for us the importance of this passage of the object, suddenly, to what one could call Zuhandenheit, as Heidegger would say, its handiness, in the field of common objects and the perplexity which results from it, and moreover, this whole passage to the side of the handy, of the utensil, is precisely that which here in the observation of little Hans, is designated for us also by a dream. He introduces the tap fitter, the one who is going to unscrew it, to rescrew it, change the whole discussion of Eingewurzelt, about what is or
is not well rooted in the body, into the field, into the register of the interchangeable.
經常發生的是，我們生命的主體會夢到，他們的手中擁有這個客體。有時是這個客體已經被壞疽弄斷，有時是某個同伴在夢中刻意過來執行這個切割的運作，或是以帶有細微差別的怪誕的焦慮的各種意外，這是夢中令人困擾的特性。在此，它們為我們定位客體通過的重要性。突然地，這個客體通過到我們所謂的「權宜」，用海德格的術語說，就是它的「方便性」，在共同客體的領域，及因為它而帶來的困惑。而且，這整個的過程，通過到方便性的這一邊，到器物的這一邊，也是由一個夢跟我們指明。他介紹這個水龍頭的裝配器。用來轉開水龍頭，重新再鎖緊，改變我們對於習性的討論，對於身體根深柢固的習性，改變到這個領域，進入可以交換的銘記。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 48
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
The problem is that of the entry of the signifier into the real and to see (5) how from this the subject is born. Does it mean that, if we find ourselves as it were before a sort of descent of the spirit, the apparition of winged signifiers would begin to make their holes in this real all by themselves, in the midst of which there would appear one of these holes which would be the subject.
這個難題是，意符如何進入真實界，並且看出這個生命的主體是從那裏誕生。這難道不是意味著，假如我們發現自己的本相，出現在一種精神的降臨之前，帶著翅膀的意符的魅影，將會全然孤單地開始在這個真實界，創造自己的洞穴？在真實界的中間，其中一個洞穴將會出現，那將就是生命的主體。
I think that, in the introduction of the real-imaginary-symbolicdivision, no one imputes such a plan to me. It is a matter today of knowing what is there at first, what it is precisely that allows this signifier to be incarnated.
我認為，當我介紹這個真實界、想像界，及意符界時，沒有人對我推崇這個計畫。今天的問題就是要知道，起初是什麼存在那裏，確實是什麼容許這個意符被具體化身。
What allows it is of course what we have there to presentify ourselves to one another, our body. Only this body is not to be taken either, for its part, in the pure and simple categories of the transcendental aesthetics.
當然，意符被容許具體化身的，就是我們在那裏所擁有的，我們互相呈現的自己，那就是我們的身體。就身體本身而言，只有它，不應該被以純粹而簡單的超越美學的範疇來看待。
This body is not in a word, constitutable in the way that Descartes establishes in the field of extension. It is a
matter of our seeing that the body in question is not given to us in a pure and simple fashion in our mirror, that even in this experience of the mirror, there can occur a moment where this image, this specular image that we think we have in our grasp, is modified: what we have face to face with us, our stature, our face, our pair of eyes, allows there to emerge the dimension of our own look and the value of the image then begins to change especially if there is a moment at which this look which appears in the mirror begins to look no longer at ourselves, initium, aura, the dawning of a feeling of strangeness which opens the door to anxiety.
這個身體不是在這一個世界裏，這個世界的形成，是以笛卡爾在延伸到領域，所建立的方式。問題是，我們如何去看出，這個受到置疑的身體，被給予我們時，並不是以一個純粹而簡單的方式，在我們的鏡像裏。即使在鏡像的這個經驗，還是會發生這樣的時刻，這個意像，這個魅影的意象，我們認為已經在我們的掌控當中，已經被修正。我們必須跟自己面對面相對，我們的身材，我們的臉孔，我們的一雙眼睛，容許我們外觀的這個向度，出現在那裏。然後，意象的價值開始改變，特別是假如有一個時刻，鏡像裏的這個外觀，開始不再觀看自己，這個最初的氛圍，陌生之感就會油然而生，朝向焦慮的大門就攤開。
The passage from the specular image to this double who escapes
me, zero is the point at which something happens whose
generality, function, presence in the whole phenomenal field we can show, I believe, by the articulation that we are giving to this function of o, and we can show that the function goes well beyond what appears at this strange moment that I wished here simply to pinpoint because its character is well known and also most discreet in its intensity.
經過這個自我理想的魅影意象，到達我捉摸不住的這個雙重人，零度是某件事情會發生的這個點。它的普及、功用及存在於整個的現象世界，我相信我們能夠顯示，根據我們所給予這個零點功用的表達。我們能夠顯示，這個功用遠遠超過在這個陌生的時刻出現的東西。我在此僅僅希望強調這個陌生的時刻，因為它的特性是眾所皆知，它雖然強烈，卻不招搖。
How does there occur this transformation of the object, which,
from a situatable object, a locatable object, an exchangeable
object constructs this sort of private, incommunicable and
(6) nevertheless dominant object which is our correlative in the phantasy?
客體的這個轉變如何會發生在那裏？從一個可確定位置的客體，可找到位置的客體，一個可交換的客體，如何建立這種私下的，無法溝溝，可是又具支配性的客體，在幻見中的互動關係？
Where exactly the moment of this moulting, of this
transformation, of this revelation occurs, is, I believe
something that, along certain paths, from certain angles which I already prepared for you in the course of the preceding years,
can be more than designated, can be explained, and that, in the little schema that I have brought you today on the board
something of these conceptions, Auffassungen, in other words of these richtiq, correct representations can be given which makes the always more or less opaque, obscure, appeal to intuition, to experience, something durchsichtig, transparent.
這個蛻變的時刻，這個轉變的時刻，這個啟明的時刻，確實在什麼時候會發生？我相信，沿著某些探討的途徑，從過去幾年來，某些我已經跟你們準備的角度，這個某件東西能夠被指明，能夠被解釋，然後，在今天在黑板上，我帶給你們這個小小的基模，有某件這些觀念的東西。換句話說，這些正確的符號能夠被給予，使得這些總是模糊不清的東西，訴諸於直覺，經驗，等某件透明的東西。
In other words, to reconstitute for ourselves the transcendental aesthetic which suits us, which suits our experience.
換句話說，為了替我們重新建構這種超越的美學，這種美學適合我們，適合我們的經驗。
You can hold then as certain, through my discourse, that what is commonly transmitted, I think, about anxiety – not extracted from Freud’s discourse but from a part of his discourse, that anxiety has no object – is properly what I am correcting: “it is not without an object, elle n’est pas sans objet”, such is exactly the formula on which there ought to be suspended this relationship of anxiety to an object.
透過我的精神分析論述，你們能夠將從焦慮所被傳遞的東西，視為是千真萬確。它不是從佛洛伊德的真理論述，而是從他的真理論述的一部份中抽取出來。焦慮沒有客體。容我適當地改正一下：「它並不是沒有客體」，這確實就是這個公式，焦慮跟一個客體的關係，應該是被懸置在那裏。
It is not properly speaking the object of anxiety, in this “not without (pas sans)”, you recognise the formula that I already used in the past about the relationship of the subject to the phallus, “he is not without having it, il n’est pas sans 1’avoir”.
適當來說，在這個「並不是沒有」，它並不是焦慮的客體。你們體認出我過去使用的這個公式，關於生命主體跟這個陽具的關係，「他並不是沒有擁有它」。
This relationship of “not being without having” does not mean
that one knows what object is involved. When I say “he is not
without resources, he is not without guile” that means precisely that these resources are obscure – at least for me – and that his guile is not of the usual sort.
這個「並不沒有擁有它」，並不意味著，我們知道牽涉到的是什麼東西。當我說，「他並不沒有才智，他並不是沒有狡詐」，那確實意味著，這些才智是模糊的，至少就我而言，他的狡詐並不是通常所稱的那種狡詐。
Moreover even the linguistic introduction of the term sans, sine, which is profoundly correlative to this apposition of haud, non haud sine, not without, is a certain type of conditional liaison, if you wish, which links being to having in a sort of alternation; he is not without having it; but besides, where it is, it is not seen.
而且，即使是從語言學的觀點來介紹「沒有欠缺」這個術語，它跟這個「不是沒有」同位語息息相關。它是一種條件的連繫。容我這樣說，它以一種輪替的方式，連繫生命的實存跟生命的擁有。他的生命的實存，並不是沒有擁有。但是除此之外，在生命實存的地方，它卻又隱而不見。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
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
Anxiety 46
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
The reply: it is the same thing as what I am teaching you, what I am teaching you leads you to, and which is already there in the text, masked under the myth of Oedipus, it is that desire and the law, which appear to be opposed in a relationship of antithesis, are only one and the same barrier to bar our access to the thing. Nolens, volens: desiring, I commmit myself to the path of the law.
回答：這跟我現在正在教導你們的一模一樣。我所教導你們的內容會引導你們欲望跟法則的地方。這在佛洛伊德的文本中已經存在，以伊底普斯的神話作為掩飾。這個欲望跟法則似乎是處於對立的關係，僅是相同的阻礙，阻止我們不能接近真實界。無論願意或是不願意：雖然我對真實界充滿欲望，可是我承諾要從事法則的探討途徑。
That is why Freud relates the origin of the law to the opaque
ungraspable desire of the father. But what this discovery and
all analytic enquiry leads you to, is not to lose sight of the truth there is behind this lure.
那就是為什麼佛洛伊德描述法則的起源，是針對父親的不可理解的模糊的欲望。這個發現，及所有精神分析研究，引導你們到達的地方，是不要忽視了躲藏在這個陷井背後的真理。
Whether my objects are normatived or not, as long as I desire, I know nothing of what I desire. And then from time to time an object appears among all the others, which I really do not know why it is there. On the one hand, there is the one which I have learned covers my anxiety, the object of the phobia – and I do not deny that I had to have it explained to me; up to then I did not know what I was thinking about, except to say that you have one, you have or you have not one – on the other hand, there is the one, as regards which I cannot really justify why it should be the one I desire, and I, who do not detest girls, why should I love a little slipper still more.
無論我研究的客體有沒有合乎標準的規範，只要我有這個欲望，我對於我所欲望的內涵，卻是一無所知。然後有時候，一個客體出現在所有的其他的客體當中，我真的是不知道，為什麼它會在那裏。在另一方面，我的焦慮裏，充滿了這個我獲知的這個客體，這個充滿恐懼的客體。我並不否認，我必須要有人跟我解釋這個客體。直到當時，我並不知道我正在想些什麼，除了我要說，你們有一個客體，你們有，或是你們沒有。在另一方面，這個客體出現。關於這個客體，我無法真正證明有理由，為什麼它竟然會是我欲望的客體。作為男人，我並不厭惡女人。為什麼我竟然會更加愛上一位落魄的男人？
On the one hand there is the wolf, on the other the shepherdess. This is where I will leave you at the end of these first talks about anxiety, there is something else to be understood about the anxiety-provoking order of God, there is Diana’s hunt which, at a time that I chose, that of Freud’s centenary, was, I told you, the path of Freud’s quest, there is something to which I invite you for the coming trimester regarding anxiety, there is the death of the wolf.
在一方面，狼出現；在另一方面，牧羊人也出現。這就是在探討「焦慮」的這些最初的談話結束之後，我將留給你們思索的地方。關於引起人焦慮的上帝的秩序，還有某件其他的東西，應該被人瞭解。那就是戴安娜的狩獵。我告訴過你們，在我選擇的那個時代，佛洛伊德的世紀，戴安娜的狩獵是佛洛伊德探討的途徑。在下個學期，有關「焦慮」的講座，我邀請你們來參加。我們會討論到狼的死亡。
In the thirty-second introductory lecture to psychoanalysis,
namely in the series of New Introductory Lectures on
Psychoanalysis which has been translated into French, Freud
specifies that it is a matter of introducing something which has not, he says, in any way a purely speculative character, but it has been translated for us in the unintelligible French which you can form your own opinion of: “Mais il ne peut vraiment être question que de conceptions. En effet, il s’agit de trouver les idées abstraites, justes qui appliquées a la matière brute de l’observation y apporteront ordre et clarté”.
在精神分析學的第卅二章介紹的演講，換句話說，在這一系列有關精神分析學的新式引介式演講，（已經被翻譯成為法文），佛洛伊德明確地說：他所要介紹的某件東西，完全不具有純粹是推理思考的特質。但是這句話被翻譯成為法文時，簡直是不知所云。我將原文寫在這裏，你們自己做個判斷：Mais il ne peut vraiment être question que de conceptions. En effet, il s’agit de trouver les idées abstraites, justes qui appliquées a la matière brute de l’observation y apporteront ordre et clarté”.
There is no full stop in German where I have shown it, and there is no enigma in the sentence: “It is a matter”, Freud tells us, “Sond ern es handelt sich wirklich”, not truly but really, “of conceptions” (comma), namely I mean by that Vorstellungen, correct abstract representations, it is a matter of einzufahren them, of bringing them, of bringing to light, these conceptions whose application to the rohe Stoff, the raw material of observation, Beobachtung, will permit us to make emerge from them, to give birth from them to order and transparency.
德文原文沒有句點，那是我加上的。這個句子沒有謎團。「這個一件事情」，佛洛伊德告訴我們，「Sond ern es handelt sich wirklich」的意思並不真正是，但是實際上可翻譯為「觀念」。換句話說，對於「Vorstellungen」，我的意思是，正確抽象的符號表徵。就是將這些符號表徵予以「啟明」，讓這些觀念真相大白。這些觀念可應用到觀察到原始材料上。觀察讓我們能夠真相出現，
從它們那裏產生秩序跟透明。
It is obviously always distressing to entrust something as
precious as the translation of Freud to ladies-in-waiting.
顯而易見的，這總是一件令人痛苦的事情，要將佛洛伊德的翻譯，信託給官方的機構來從事。
This effort, this programme, the one that we have been trying our best at here for some years, and it is because of this that today we find that we have, in short, specified on our path about anxiety, the status of something which I would designate right away by the letter o which you see here enthroned above the outline, the outline of the vase which symbolizes for us the narcissistic container of the libido, in so far as through the mediation of this mirror of the Other it can be related to its own image i'(o) and that between the two there can operate this communicating oscillation that Freud designates as the reversibility between the libido of one’s own body and that of the object.
這個努力，這個計畫，幾年來我們在此一直盡力而為的計畫。因為這樣，今天我們發現，總之，我們已經在我們探討焦慮的途徑指明，某件東西的地位。這個東西，我立刻用字母o指明，你們看到在此它被推崇在這個輪廓的上方，這個花瓶狀的輪廓。這個花瓶狀的輪廓跟我們象徵著，生命力比多的自戀的容器。透過這個大它者的鏡子的仲介，它能夠跟它的「自我理想魅影」的意象發生關係。在這兩者之間，還可能運作這個溝通的搖擺。佛洛伊德指明這個溝通的搖擺，當著是自己身體的力比多，跟客體的力比多，彼此之間的倒轉。
From this economic oscillation, this reversible libido from i(o) to i'(o), there is something which we would not say escapes, but which intervenes in the form of an incidence whose style of disturbance is precisely the one that we are studying this year.
從這個力比多的生命力的搖擺，這個倒轉的力比多，從想像界的自我理想的魅影，到意符界的理想的自我，有某件東西，我們姑且不說它是逃避掉，但是它以意外的形式介入。這個意外所引起的困擾，確實是我們今年要研討的東西。
The most striking manifestation, the signal of the intervention of this object o, is anxiety.
最耐人尋味的證明，這個客體o的介入的訊號，就是焦慮。
This does not mean that this object o is only the reverse of
anxiety, that it only intervenes, that it only functions in
correlation with anxiety. Anxiety, Freud taught us, plays the
function of a signal with respect to something. I am saying: it is a signal related to what is happening about the relationship of a subject, of a subject who moreover cannot enter into this relationship except in the vacillation of a certain fading, the one which the notation of the subject by an $ designates, the relationship of this subject, at this vacillating moment, with (3) this object in all its generality.
這並不意味著，這個客體o僅是焦慮的倒轉。它僅是介入，它僅是發揮功用，跟焦慮的關係。佛洛伊德告訴我們，焦慮扮演一個訊息的功用，關於某件事情。我目前的說法是：焦慮是一個訊息，正在發生的事情，跟一個生命主體的關係。而且，這個生命的主體無法進入這個關係，除了以一種逐漸淡化的搖擺方式。這個以S上面被畫一槓，代表被禁制的生命的主體的標記，在這個搖擺點，生命的主體跟這個小客體處於一般狀態下的關係。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 45
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 5: Wednesday 12 December 1962
Such is the relief, the originality, the dimension, the order of presence, in which there is activated for us the God who speaks, the one who tells us expressly that he is what he is.
真是令人欣慰，這樣的原創力，這樣的向度，這樣存在的秩序。對於我們而言，在裏面，言說的上帝的被創造出了。這位上帝清楚地告訴我們，他是怎樣的一位上帝。
In order to advance while it is there within my reach, into the field of his demands, and because you are going to see that it is very close to our subject, I would introduce – this is the moment – something which you may well imagine I did not notice today or yesterday, namely that, among these demands of God to his elected, privileged people, there are some quite precise ones regarding which it seems that this God did not need the prescience of my seminar to carefully specify the terms.
雖然這還是我理解的範圍，為了要進入上帝要求的領域，因為你們將會看出，這位上帝跟我們的生命的主體，頗為類似。在這個時刻，容我介紹這個某件東西。你們很有理由想像，我不是今天或是昨天才注意到。換句話說，在上帝給予他選擇的特權的子民的要求裏，有一些確實很明確的要求。關於這些要求，這位元上帝似乎並不需要我的講座的先見之明，來仔細標明這些術語。
There is one of them called circumcision.
其中有一個術語，被稱之為「割包皮」。
He orders us to enjoy, and what is more he goes into how it
should be done. He specifies the demand, he separates out the
object. This is why, I think, for you as for me, there could not fail to appear for a long time, the extraordinary entanglements, the confusion of the analogical evocation that there is in the supposed reference of circumcision to castration. Of course this has a relationship with the object of anxiety.
上帝命令我們去享受，而且他還暢談如何享受。他明確指明這個要求，他區分享受的客體。這就是為什麽我認為，對於你們跟我而言，必然會出現這個特別的糾纏，這個類比召喚的混淆，當我們在所謂的割包皮的指稱時，會召喚到閹割的指稱。當然，這跟焦慮的這個客體有關係。
But to say that circumcision is the cause of it, or in any
fashion whatsoever, the representative, the analogue of what we call castration and its complex, is a flagrant error. It does not get you out of the symptom precisely, namely of that which in the case of some subject or other who has been circumcised, may establish itself, in terms of confusion concerning its brand with what is involved eventually in neurosis regarding the complex of castration.
但是若是說割包皮就是閹割的原因，或是以任何方式，作為代表，類比我們所謂的閹割及其情結，那是彰彰明甚的錯誤。那樣確實無法使你擺脫這個病徵，換句話說，關於閹割情結，在神經質患者身上，最後所牽涉到的烙印，若是跟他混淆，在某一位被割包皮的生命的主體，他無法建立自己。
Because after all, there is nothing less castrating than
circumcision. When it is clear-cut, when it is well done,
undoubtedly we cannot deny that the result is rather elegant.
因為畢竟，割包皮根本就不像是在閹割。當包皮被切割，當切割的過程順暢，無可置疑的，我們不能否認，結果還相當令人讚賞。
I assure you that alongside all these sexual organs, I mean the male ones, of greater Greece that the antique dealers, on the pretext that I am an analyst, bring me by the cartload and which my secretary puts into the already overcrowded courtyard, alongside all these sexual organs, in which I must say that by an accentuation which I do not dare to qualify as aesthetic the phimosis is always accentuated in a particularly disgusting (14) fashion; there is all the same in the practice of circumcision something healthy from the aesthetic point of view.
我告訴你們，在遠古希臘時代，所有這些性的器官當中，我指的是男性的性器官，賣古董的商人成堆地帶給我，因為我是精神分析師。我的秘書將它們都堆放到已經過份擁擠的庭院，跟所有這些性愛的器官在一起。我必須說，我不敢將包皮過長充當著是一種美學，提到包皮過長，我們總是以一種厭惡的方式看待。在從事割包皮時，總是有某件健康的東西被提到，從美學的觀點來說。
And moreover those who continue to repeat on this point the
confusions which are all over psychoanalytic writings, all the same most of them have long ago grasped that there was something from the functional point of view which is just as essential as reducing, at least in part in a signifying fashion, the ambiguity that is described as thè bisexual type. “Je suis la plaie et le couteau”, Baudelaire says somewhere. Well then, why consider it to be the normal function to be at once the dart and the sheath?
而且，對於這一點，那些繼續重複這些混淆的人，在精神分析的著作裏，到處充斥著。儘管如此，很久以前，他們大部分的人就已經理解到，從功用的觀點來看，有某件東西是同樣地重要，在被描繪為雙性戀的模式，可以減少它的模糊曖昧，至少，以一個意符化的方式。「我是傷痕，我又是刀刃」，法國詩人波特來爾在某個地方說過。嗯，為什麼我們要將它認為是正常的功用，既充當標槍，又充當劍鞘？
There is obviously in this ritual attention of circumcision a reduction of bisexuality which cannot but obviously generate
something healthy as regard the division of roles.
顯而易見的，在這個割包皮的儀式焦點裏，男女雙種性別無可避免地會產生
某件建康的東西，作為明顯的簡化男女角色區分的功用。
These remarks, as you can well sense, are not by the way, they
open up precisely the question which situates beyond, something which already from this explanation can no longer appear as a sort of capricious ritual, but something which conforms to what in the demand I teach you to consider as the circumscribing of the object, as the function of the cut – it must be said – of this delimited zone here: God demands an offering, and very precisely to separate out the object after having circumscribed it; that whether after that the sources as well as the experience of those who are grouped together, recognise one another by this traditional sign, that if their experience does not for all that lead to a lowering – perhaps far from it – of the relation to anxiety, it is starting from there that the question begins.
你們會很清楚感覺出來，這些談話不是偶然發生，它們確實展開這個問題，將某件東西定位在超越的地方。根據這個解釋，這個東西不再能夠出現作為一種任意的儀式，而是某件跟需求互相一致的東西。我教導你們將它視為是這個客體的限制，作為是切割的功用，跟這個被除掉限制的地區切割，我們必須這樣說。上帝要求一個犧性貢品，確實就是要區隔這個客體，在將它限制之後。然後，這些來源，或被聚集在一起的那些人的經驗，並沒有根據這個傳統的符號，互相體認出來。儘管這樣，他們的經驗並沒有導致降低跟焦慮的關係，（可能根本就沒有降低）。就是從那裏，問題就開始了。
One of those who are evoked here – and it is really not
designating anybody in my audience – called me one day in a
private note the last of the cabalistic Christians. You can be reassured, if some investigation or other involving properly speaking the calculus of signifiers may be something on which I delay from time to time, it will never make me mistake as I may say my illusions for the lantern of knowledge; or indeed rather, if this lantern turns out to be a blind lantern, to recognise my illusion in it, but more directly than Freud because, coming after him, I question his God: “Che vuoi?”, “What do you want of me?”, in other words: “What is the relationship of desire to the law?” A question always elided by the philosophical tradition, but to which Freud answered – and you live on it, even if like (15) everybody else you have not realised it.
在這裏被召喚的那些人，其中一位，（我確實並不是指明是聽眾中的任何人），有一天用一張私人的紙條，稱呼我是秘密基督教徒的最後的一位。你們可以確定，假如有某種的調查，適當地說，牽涉到意符的微積分演算，這個調查可能是某件事情，讓我根據它，不時地在拖延我的知識像燈籠般啟明的幻見，它讓我永遠不會犯下錯誤，我可以這樣說。或是反過來說，假如這個知識的燈籠，結果證明是一個無法啟明的燈籠，在裏面照亮的只是我的幻見，而是比佛洛伊德更直接的東西。因為我跟隨在佛洛伊德之後，我詢問他的上帝：「你到底要求我什麼？」換句話說，「欲望跟法則的關係是什麽？」哲學的傳統對於這個問題，總是避而不答。但是佛洛伊德回答這個問題。你們的生活也脫離不了這個問題，只是像任何其他人一樣，你們自己沒有體會出來。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 44
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 5: Wednesday 12 December 1962
Thus, from one stumble to another, there progresses I do not dare to say knowledge, but undoubtedly understanding. I cannot resist the pleasure in passing of sharing with you the discovery that chance, a lucky chance, what is called chance but which is scarcely that at all, a lucky discovery that I made for you no later than last week-end, in a dictionary of slang.
因此，步步為營的進展過程，我不敢妄言是真理的知識，只是無可置疑地說是瞭解。我無法抗拒偶爾獲得的快樂，跟你們分享這個發現，那是機運，僥倖的機運，所謂的機運。或者根本也不是機運，而是在上個星期，我跟你們所做的僥倖的發現，在一本俚語的字典發現。
God knows, I have taken enough time to come to it, but the English tongue is really a lovely tongue.
天曉得，我曾經花費足夠長的時間，才到獲得這個發現，但是英文的語言，確實是一個可愛的語言。
Is there anyone here then who knows that since the fifteenth century, English slang has found this marvel of replacing on occasions “I understand you perfectly”, for example, by “I understumble”？
在此有沒有任何人知道，自從十五世紀以來，英文的俚語已經發現到這個神奇？例如，「我非常瞭解你」，有時候會被取代為「心知肚明口難開」。
namely – I am writing it out, since the phonetising has allowed you perhaps to miss the nuance – what、 I have just explained to you, not what is meant by understand: I understand you, but something untranslatable into French since the whole value of this slang word is the famous stumble which means precisely what I am in the process of explaining to you: the trebuchement.
換句話說，（讓我現在跟它寫出來，因為光聽聲音，你們可能會錯過這個微妙的差別）。我剛剛跟你們解釋過，不是「我瞭解你」的這個瞭解，是什麼意思，而是有某件東西難於翻譯成為法文。這個俚語字詞的整個的價值，就是著名的礙難說出口。那個意思確實是我正在跟你們解釋的：「小心跌倒」！
I understand you,’ that reminds me that one way or another, is always to go further along the path of misunderstanding.
Moreover, if the stuff of experience was composed, as classical psychology teaches us, of the real and the unreal – and why not – how can one not recall in this connection what this indicates to (12) us in terms of having to take advantage of what is properly the Freudian conquest, and which is specifically the following:
「我瞭解你」，這句話提醒我，在某方面，那總是朝著誤解的途徑，越走越遠。而且，假如經驗是有真實界及非真實界的的材料被組成，如同古典的心理學所教導我們的，有何不可？關於這一點，為何我們不回想到：這是跟我們指示，我們必須善為利用，恰當來說，是佛洛伊德已經克服的部份。明確地就是以下的內容：
it is that if man is tormented by the unreal in the real, it
would be altogether vain to hope to rid oneself of it for the
reason, which is what in the Freudian conquest is quite precisely disturbing, that in the unreal, it is the real which torments him. His concern, Sorge, the philosopher Martin Heidegger tells us. Of course! This is a great advance for us.
假如人在真實界，被非真實界的事情所折磨，希望驅除這個折磨將是完全徒勞無功的。佛洛伊德克服的這個部份，確實是相當令人困擾。理由是，在非真實界，是真實界在折磨他。哲學家馬丁、海德格告訴我們，他的關心是一種「焦慮」。當然！對於我們而言，這真是向前跨一大步。
Is this the final term, that before busying oneself, before
speaking, before getting down to work, concern is presupposed?
What does that mean? And do we not see that here we are already
at the level of an art of concern: man is obviously a great
producer of something which in so far as it regards him is called concern. But in that case, I prefer to learn it in a holy book, which is at the same time the most profanatory book which exists, called Ecclesiastes. I think I will refer to it in the future.
這是最後的術語嗎？在開始忙碌之前，在言說之前，在孜孜從事之前，我們預先假定我們是一種「關心」？那是什麽意思？我們難道沒有看出，在此我們已經是處於關心的藝術的層次？顯而易見，人是某件東西的偉大製造者。這個東西，對於人而言，就是關心。但是在那種情況，我寧願從一本被稱為「傳道書」的聖經來學習關心。我認為我以後還會提到它。
This Ecclesiastes which is as you know the Greek translation in the septuagint of the term qoheleth, a unique term, employed or. this occasion, which comes from qahal, congregation, qoheleth, being at once the abstract and feminine form of it, being properly speaking the congregating virtue, the rallier, the ecclesia, if you wish, rather than Ecclesiastes.
眾所皆知，「傳道書」是希臘文的翻譯，是「聚會眾」的古老用詞。這是一個獨特的術語，在這個場合，它來自「會眾」，這既是抽象，又是女性的形式。適當來說，就是成為彙集的品德，聚會者，教堂會眾，而不是「傳道書」
And what does it teach us, this book which I described as a
sacred and most profane book. Here the philosopher does not fail to stumble, in reading it, on some Epicurean echo or other, as I have read! To talk of Epicurean in connection with Ecclesiastes!
這本書教導我們什麽？我將這本書描述為一本聖書，也是一部世俗的書。在此，在閱讀它的時候，哲學家一定會目瞪口呆，如同我在閱讀的時候，因為內容具有伊壁鳩魯的迴響。
I know that Epicurus has long ceased to calm us, as was, as you know his intention. But to say that Ecclesiastes had for a single moment a chance of producing the same effect on us, can only mean that one has never even opened it!
我知道，伊壁鳩魯哲學很久以來，已經不再讓我們感動，眾所皆知，他的用意本來就是如此。但是假如說，傳道書對於我們也曾經有那麼一段時間，產生相同的影響，那只能是意味著，我們甚至從來沒有打開過它。
“God commands me to enjoy (de jouir)” – this is textually in the Bible – it is all the same the word of God. And even if it is not the word of God for you, I think that you have already
noticed the total difference there is between the God of the Jews and the God of Plato.
「上帝命令我去享受！」這是聖經上的文本。這仍然是上帝的話語。即使不是上帝親自跟你們說，你們應該已經注意到，在猶太人的上帝，跟柏拉圖的上帝，彼此之間，是截然不同。
Even if Christian history thought itself obliged, in connection with the God of the Jews, to find with the
God of Plato its little psychotic evasion, it is, all the same,
time to remember the difference there is between the universal
mover God of Aristotle, the sovereign good God, a delusional
conception of Plato, and the God of the Jews, namely a God with whom one speaks, a God who demands something of you and who in (13) Ecclesiastes gives you the order “enjoy (jouis)”.
有關猶太人的上帝，即使是基督教的歷史思想本身，都會跟柏拉圖的上帝一樣，發現它具有變態的逃避。同樣的，我們應該記得這個差異，亞利斯多德的上帝是普世的推動者，是統治宇宙的善的上帝，是柏拉圖的幻想的觀念，而猶太人的上帝，換句話說，我們跟他對談的上帝。這位上帝會要求你某件東西，他在傳道書裏，就給你們下達這個命令：「去享受吧！」
That is really something! Because to enjoy when ordered to do so, is all the same something in which everyone senses that if there is a source, an origin of anxiety, it ought all the same to be found somewhere there. To this order “Jouis!”, I can only answer one thing, which is: “J’ouis (I hear)”. ‘Of course, but naturally I do not enjoy so easily for all that.
那確實是不同凡響的事情！因為當你們被命令去享受的時候，享受本身這件事，依舊會讓每個人感覺到，假如有一個來源，一個焦慮的起源，那仍然應該是在別的地方去找到。對於這個命令「去享受吧！」我只能回答一件事。那就是：「我聽到了！」當然，儘管我是聽到，我要享受，可還不是那麼容易。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Anxiety 43
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 5: Wednesday 12 December 1962
I said almost to be complete, because I have not the time to tell you why, the passage a l’acte in this place and acting out at a different one, but I will all the same make you advance along the path by pointing out to you, in the closest relationship with our remarks this morning, the opposition that was already implied and even expressed in my first introduction of these terms, and whose position I am now going to underline, namely between the dimension of too much which is in embarrassment and the dimension of the too little in what I told you, by means of an etymological commentary which you remember I think – at least those who were (10) there – I underlined about the sense of dismay.
我說我幾乎要講完，因為我沒有時間告訴你們為什麼，在這個地方的激情跟演出，處於不同的時刻。但是我仍舊要你們前進，沿著我跟你們指出的途徑，以今天早上，我們的對談所表現的最親密的關係。在我最初介紹這些術語時，已經暗示，甚至是明講出它的對立面。這些術語的立場，我現在將要再強調一次。換句話說，在太多的尷尬的向度，及我所告訴你們太少的真實界的向度之間，我憑藉詞源學的評論，你們會記得，至少在我演講的現場的那些人會記得，我強調過，我有沮喪的感覺。
Dismay, as I told you, is essentially the evocation of a power
which is lacking, esmayer, the experience of what you are lacking in need. It is in the reference to these two terms whose link is essential in our subject; for this link underlines the ambiguity: if there is too much, what we have to deal with then is not lacking to us; if it is lacking to us, why say that elsewhere it embarrasses us, let us be on our guard here not to yield to the most flattering of illusions.
我告訴過你們，沮喪基本上是召喚一種正在欠缺的力量，當你有所需求，卻偏偏欠缺的經驗產生的沮喪。這兩個術語的指稱，它們的連接在我們生命主體的身上是基本的。因為這個連接強調這個模糊曖昧。假如有太多的尷尬，我們所必須處理的就不是我們身上的欠缺；假如對於我們是一種欠缺，那為什麼要說，在別的地方，它讓我們感到尷尬。在此，讓我們小心警戒：我們切勿屈從於幻見場景的迷惑。
In attacking anxiety here ourselves, what are we trying to do, what do all those who have spoken of it ‘scientifically want? Good Lord, it was that it was pure need, what was required of me to posit at the beginning as necessary for the constitution of a world, it is here that this reveals itself not to be useless, and that you have control of it. This is better seen precisely because it is anxiety that is involved.
當我們自己在攻擊焦慮時，我們正在做些什麼？那些以科學術語侃侃而談的人，他們到底要什麼？我的天啊！那就是純粹的需求，我在開始時，所被要求要提出的東西，這個建構一個世界所必需的。就在這裏，這個焦慮顯示自己，不是一無是處。你已經控制它。這一點確實能讓人看得比較清楚，因為它牽涉到焦慮。
And what is seen is what? And to want to speak about it in a properly scientific way is to show that it is what? An immense deception. It is not realised that the whole domain which our discourse has conquered always ends up showing that it is an immense deception.
所被看見的是什麽？想要以正統科學的方法來談論它，這已經顯示它是什麽？巨大的欺騙！大家都沒有體會到，我們真理論述所克服的整個領域，結果總是顯示：它是一個巨大的欺騙。
To master the phenomenon by thought, is always to show how one can remake it in a falsified way, it is to be able to reproduce it, namely to be able to make a signifier of it.
使用思想來掌控這個現象，總是顯示出：我們如何能夠用虛假的方式，來重新鑄造它，如何能夠重新產生它，換句話說，如何能夠使它成為一個意符。
A signifier of what? In reproducing it the subject can falsify the book of accounts, which should not astonish us if it is true, as I teach you, that the signifier is the trace of the subject in the world’s course. Only, if we believe we are able to continue this game with anxiety, well then, we are sure of missing out, because precisely I stated right at the beginning that anxiety is concerned with what escapes this game.
使用什麼來成為一個意符？當重新產生它時，生命的主體能夠將人生的收支簿虛假編造。這一點不會令我們大驚小怪，如同我教導過你們，假如意符的確就是生命主體經歷人生的痕跡，。只是，假如我們相信，我們能夠帶著焦慮，繼續人生的這個遊戲，那麼，我們確定會迷失其中。因為從一開始，我就確實陳述過：焦慮跟這場人生之遊戲所逃離的東西，息息相關。
Therefore this is what we must be on guard against at the moment of grasping what is meant by this relationship of embarrassment to too much signifier, of lack to too little signifier. I am going to illustrate this relationship if you have not done so already: if there were no analysis, of course, I could not speak about it; but analysis encountered it at the first corner.
因此，這是我們必須提防警戒的地方，當我們理解到，尷尬跟意符太多的關係，以及欠缺跟意符太少的關係，是什麼意思。我將要舉例說明這個關係，假如你們還沒有這樣做。當然，假如沒有精神分析學，我本來無法談論它。但是因緣巧合，我在人生最初的轉捩點，邂逅它的就是精神分析學。
The phallus for example, little Hans, just as much of a logician as Aristotle, poses the equation: all animate beings have a phallus. I am presupposing of course that I am addressing myself to people who have followed ray commentary on the analysis of little Hans, who will remember here in this connection, I think, what I was careful to (11) accentuate last year concerning what is called the universal affirmative proposition. I told you the meaning of what I wanted to produce for you by this, namely that the affirmation which is described as universal, positive universal, only has meaning from the definition of the real, starting from the impossible.
例如，小漢斯的這個陽具，對於像亞利斯多德這樣的邏輯專家，他會提出這個平等式：所有的動物都會有陽具。當然，我是在預先假設，我自己正在對談的聽從，他們對於小漢斯的精神分析耳熟能詳。他們會記得在此這個關連。我想，去年我小心翼翼強調的，關於所謂普世皆準的肯定的命題。我告訴過你們，我憑藉這個，想要跟你表達的意思是什麽。換句話說，被描述為普世皆準的這個肯定，具有正面作用的普世皆準。它只有從真實界的定義，從這個不可能界開始，它才具有意義。
It is impossible for an animate being not to have a phallus, something that, as you see, poses logic in this
essentially precarious function of condemning the real, of
eternally stumbling into the impossible. And we have no other
means of apprehending it, we advance from stumble to stumble.
Example: there are living beings, Mummy for example, who do not have a phallus, so there must be no living beings, hence anxiety.
一個動物性的生命不具有陽具，是不可能的。你們看得出來，某件東西會提出邏輯的問題，在這個基本上是不穩定的功用。它一方面譴責這個真實界，另一方面又始終想要闖入這個不可能界。我們沒有其他的方法來掌握它，除了就是步步為營地前進。例如，有一些像母親一樣的生物，她們並沒有陽具，所以一定就沒有生物存在。焦慮因此產生。
And the following step is to be taken. It is certain that the
easiest thing is to say that even those who do not have one, have one. This indeed is why it is the one that we hold onto in general. It is that the living beings which do not have a phallus have one despite and against everything. It is because they have a phallus that we psychologists will call unreal – this will simply be the signifying phallus – that they are living beings.
以下的步驟應該被採取。的確，最容易的事情就是說，即使那些沒有陽具的生物，其實是有。這確實就是為什麼，一般來說，這就是我們掌握的陽具。儘管違背一切的證據，我們說，沒有擁有陽具的生物，其實是有。這是因為他們擁有的陽具，是我們的心理學家所謂的「非真實界」的陽具。這個僅僅是意符化的陽具，因為他們是具有生命的存在物。
陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
Springhero's Weblog 