Anxiety 256 Jacques Lacan

Anxiety 256

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

The world of suppositions that lies beneath this is, I would not say unfathomable; one can specify them for the greater part: it is an excessively wide-spread supposition, namely that the word is made to communicate.

位於這個底下的這些假設的世界並非深不可測,容我這樣說。我們能夠指明它們的大部份。這是一個過度擴散的假設。換句話說,文字是被用來作為溝通。

That is not true. If Piaget cannot grasp this sort of gap there again which he himself nevertheless designates – and this is really what is important in reading his works, I beg you between now and the time that I return or I do not return, to get hold of The language and thought of the child which is an altogether admirable book; it illustrates at every moment the degree to which what Piaget collects in terms of facts in this approach, which is aberrant in principle, demonstrates something quite different to what he thinks; naturally since he is far from being a fool, it happens that Piaget’s own remarks go along that very path, in any case for example the problem as to
why this language of the subject is essentially made for him,
never happens in a group.

這並非是真實。假如皮亞傑無法理解,他自己所指明的在那裏的這種差距。這確實是我們閱讀他的著作,重要的地方。在現在跟我回來,或沒有回來的時刻之間,我要求你們去找到「兒童的語言跟思想」這本書。這是非常值得讚賞的一本書。它隨時都在舉例說明,皮亞傑以這個方法,收集一些事實,到達什麼程度。它在原理方面是偏離正道。它證明某件完全不同於他所思考的東西。當然,他決非是一個傻瓜。皮亞傑自己的談論恰巧就是沿著那條研究途徑。例如,有關生命主體的這個語言的難題,基本上是為他而設的。這個難題在群體中永遠不會發生。

What he lacks, I would ask you to read these pages because I cannot go through them with you, but at every moment you will see how his thinking slips, clings to a position of the question which is precisely the one which veils the phenomenon which, as a matter of fact, is very clearly displayed, and the essential of it is essentially the fact that it is a different thing to say that the word has essentially for effect to communicate, while (9) the effect of the word, the effect of the signifier is to give rise in the subject to the dimension of the signified essentially.

他所欠缺的,我要求你們閱讀這幾頁,因為我無法陪著你們讀完。但是隨時你們將會看出,他的思想是如何發生失誤,如何堅持這個問題的立場。確實就是這個立場,遮蔽了事實上顯而易見的這個現象。它的重點基本上就是這個事實:它跟文字基本上擁有溝通作為結果的說法,截然不同。文字的結果,意符的結果,基本上,就是要在生命主體的身上,產生意旨真實界的向度

I will return to it again if necessary. That this relationship to the other that is depicted for us here as being the key, under the name of the socialisation of language, the key to the turning point between egocentric language and completed language, this’turning point is not, in its function, a point of effect, of effective impact, it is nameable as a desire to communicate. It is indeed moreover because this desire is disappointed in Piaget – it is quite tangible – that his whole pedagogy here gives rise to systems and ghosts that are, in fact, rather affected.

假如有需要,我將會回頭談論它。生命主體跟大它者的關係,在此跟我們描述的,作為這個關鍵,以語言社會化的名義,作為這個轉捩點的關鍵,處於自我中心的語言跟完成的語言之間。在它的功用上,這個轉捩點並不是一個結果的點,並不是一個具有影響盟約的點。它能夠被命名為想要溝通的欲望。而且,這確實是因為這個欲望對於皮亞傑感到失望。(這是相當具體明白的),他整個的教學法在此產生制度跟鬼魅。事實上,這些制度及鬼魅相當受到影響。

That the child appears to him to only half-understand him, he adds: “They do not even understand one another”. But is that where the question lies?

他覺得兒童對他只是一知半解。他補充說:「他們甚至互相不瞭解。」但是問題出在哪里?

One sees very well in his text how the question is not there.
One sees it in the way that he articulates what he calls
understanding between children. As you know this is how he
proceeds; -he begins by taking for example the following schema which is going to be depicted on an image which is going to be the support of the explanations, the schema of a tap.

我們在他的文本看得很清楚,問題不是出在那裏。我們看出這個問題,從他表達有關他所謂的兒童之間的瞭解的方式。眾所周知,這是他前進的方式。例如,他開始採取以下的基模。這個基模將會根據一個意像被描述。這個意像將作為解釋的支持,一個水龍頭的意像。

That gives us something more or less like that, this being the cross-section of the tap; you say to the child, as often as necessary: “You see the little tube here – it will also be called the door – it is blocked; which means that the water there cannot get through in order to flow here into what will also be called in a certain fashion the outlet, etc”.

我們得到的意像大約是那樣:假如這是水龍頭的交接部份,你經常不斷地對這個小孩說:「你看到這裏的這個小管,它也可以被稱為是門。它被塞住了。這意味著,那裏的水無法流出來,為了流入用某種方式所謂的出口,等等。」

He explains. Here is this schema, if you want to test it. He
thought moreover – I point this out to you in passing – he should complete it himself with the presence of the basin which will absolutely not intervene in the six or nine, seven points of explanation that he gives us.

他解釋,這就是這個基模,假如你想要測試它。而且,他認為,(順便讓我跟你們指出這一點,)他自己應該完成它,用水盆的存在。這個水盆絕對不會介入這六點、或九點,或七點的解釋,他給予我們的解釋。

He will be very struck by the following: the fact is that the
child repeats very well all the terms of the explanation that he, Piaget, has given him. He is going to make use of this child as an explainer for another child, whom he will bizarrely call the reproducer.

他對於以下的事實將會印象深刻:事實上,小孩很仔細地重複所有解釋的術語,皮亞傑所給予的術語。他將使用這個小孩,充當對於另一個小孩的結釋者。他給予另外這個小孩一個古怪的名稱:複製者。

First phase: he notices, not without some astonishment, that what the child has repeated so well, which means for him that he obviously has understood – I am not saying that he is wrong, I am saying that Piaget does not even ask himself the question – that what the child has repeated to him, Piaget, in the test that he carried out with a view to seeing what the child had understood, (10) is not going to be in any way identical to what he is then going to explain. At which Piaget makes this very correct remark, that what he elides in his explanations, is precisely what the child has understood, without seeing that in giving this explanation this would imply that the child for his part would explain nothing if he had really understood everything, as Piaget says.

第一個短語:他注意到,不是沒有大為吃驚,這個小孩重複得很清楚。對於他而言,這意味著,顯而易見,他已經瞭解。我不是說,他搞錯了。我是在說,皮亞傑甚至沒有問他自己這個問題。這個小孩曾經復述,在皮亞傑他執行的考試,為了要看出這個小孩瞭解什麼。小孩所複述的,根本就不同於他當時所要的解釋。在這個時候,皮亞傑做了這個非常正確的談論:他在他的解釋所閃躲的,確實就是這個小孩所瞭解的。但是他沒有看出,當他在給予這個解釋時,這將意味著,就他而言,假如小孩真的瞭解一切,他將什麼也不解釋。皮亞傑如是說。

It is of course not true that he has understood everything
– as you are going to see – any more than anybody else.
With these very insufficient explanations that the explainer
gives to the reproducer, what astonishes Piaget, is that in a field like that of these examples, namely the field that he calls that of explanations – because I am leaving to one side, for lack of time, the field that he describes as that of “stories”.

當然,這並非是真實,你們將會看出,他跟任何其他的人一樣,並沒有什麼都瞭解。皮亞傑所感到驚訝的是,解釋者給予復述者這些不充足的解釋,在像這些例子的解釋的領域,換句話說,他所謂的解釋的領域。因為時間不足,我將要離開這個議題,去談論他描述為「故事」的議題。

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: