Anxiety 258 Jacques Lacan

Anxiety 258

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

There are absolutely no details about this in Piaget who of course knows well that if there is no pressure, nothing will come out of the tap even if you turn it on, but who believes he is able to omit this because he is placing himself at the level of the so called mind of the child. Let me continue. This seems to be completely stupid, all of this, but you are going to see.

在皮亞傑的身上,絕對沒有關於這個的細節。當然,皮亞傑知道得很清楚,假如沒有壓力,水龍頭不會有任何東西出來,即使你跟它轉開。但是誰相信他能夠忽略這一點,因為他將自己放置於所謂小孩的心靈的層次。讓我繼續說下去。所有這一切,似乎匪夷所思。但是你們將會明白。

The coming into view, the springing forth; the meaning of the whole adventure does not emerge from my speculations, but from
experience. You will see. It emerges all the same from this remark that I have made to you – I who do not claim to have understood exhaustively – that there is one thing that is very certain: it is that the explanation of the tap is not well done, if what is involved is the tap as cause, by saying that it operates sometimes on and sometimes off. A tap is made to be turned off.

整個冒險的暴露,冒出,及意義,並不從我的妄自猜測,而是從精神分析經驗出現。你們將會看出。它仍然是從我跟你們做的這個談論出現。我並沒有宣稱我全面性地瞭解。但是有一件事是非常確定的:水龍頭的這個解釋還不是很貼切,假如牽涉的是把水龍頭當著是原因,然後說,它有時的操作是開,有時的操作是關。水龍頭的設計是用來關上。

It is enough that once, because of a strike, you no longer know when the pressure is going to come back to know that, if you have left it on, there are lots of inconveniences, that it ought therefore to be turned off even when there is no pressure.

假如自來水廠罷工,一但你不知道壓力什麼時候要回來,你就會知道,假如你讓水龍頭開著,會有許多的不方便。因此它應該被關上,即使這時並沒有水壓。

Now what is marked in what happens in the transmission from the explainer to the reproducer? It is something that Piaget
deplores, which is that the so called reproducer child no longer has the slightest interest in anything that is involved
concerning two branches, the operation of the fingers and
everything that follows from it.

從解釋者到復述者的傳遞所發生的事情,現在會標示著什麼?這是某件皮亞傑所哀歎的事情。所謂的復述者的小孩根本不再有任何的興趣,對於任何牽涉到關於兩個分叉的事情:手指頭的運作,以及跟隨運作而來的一切。

Nevertheless, he points out, the other has transmitted a certain part of it to him. The wastage in comprehension seems to be enormous to him; but I assure you, if you read the explanations of the little third party, of the little reproducer, of little Riv in the text in question, you will notice that what he precisely puts the stress on, are two things: namely the effect of the tap as something (13) which can be turned off and the result, namely that thanks to a tap one can fill a basin without it overflowing, the emergence as such of the dimension of the tap as cause.

可是,他指出來,這一切已經傳遞某部份的東西給他。對於他而言,理解的消耗物似乎是巨大的;但是我告訴你們,假如你們閱讀第三者的解釋,這位小小的復述者的解釋,在討論中的文本裏的瑞夫的解釋,你們就會注意到,他確實施加壓力的有兩件東西:換句話說,水龍頭的影響,作為某件能夠被關掉的東西,以及結果。也就是說,由於水龍頭,我們灌滿水盆,而不會讓水滿溢出來。水龍頭的向度的出現本身,作為原因。

Why does Piaget so completely miss the phenomenon which is produced, if not because he totally fails to recognise that what there is for a child in a tap as cause, are the desires that the tap provokes in him, namely that for example it makes him want to have a pee or, like every time one is in the presence of water, that one is with respect to that water a communicating vessel and that it is not for nothing that in order to speak to you about libido I took this metaphor of what happens between the subject and his specular image.

為什麼皮亞傑如此渾然錯過被產生的這個現象?難道不是因為他完全沒有體認出,對於小孩而言,在水龍頭裏面作為原因的東西,是水龍頭在他身上喚起的欲望。換句話說,例如,水龍頭使他想要尿尿,或者像每一次我們在水的面前,我們是一艘溝通的船隻。這並非毫無意義,為了要跟你們談論到力比多,我採取這個比喻,發生在生命的主體跟他的魅影的意像。

If man had a tendency to forget that in the presence of water he is a communicating vessel, there is in the childhood of most the washtub to remind him that effectively, what happens in a child of the age of those that Piaget designates for us, in the presence of a tap, is this irresistible type of acting-out which consists in doing something which runs the greatest risk of upsetting it, and thus the tap finds itself once again in the place of the cause, namely at the level also of the phallic dimension, as that which necessarily introduces the fact that the little tap is something which can have a relationship with the plumber, that one can unscrew, dismantle, replace… etc: it is (-^).

假如人有一個傾向去忘記,在水的面前,他是一艘溝通的船隻。在大部人的童年,常有澡盆提醒他,有效地,發生在這個年紀的小孩身上,皮亞傑跟我們指明出來,在水龍頭的前面,有著這種無法抗拒的演出,在於做某件冒著引起澡盆傾翻的危險。因此,我們再一次發現水龍頭在此代替了原因的位置。換句話說,在陽具向度的這個層次,當著必須要介紹這個事實:水龍頭是某件能夠跟鉛管工,有某種的關係。我們能夠鬆開螺絲,拆解,更換、、、等等。這是一種「負減陽具」。

It is not the fact of omitting these elements of experience – that moreover Piaget, who is very well informed about analytical matters, is not ignorant of – that I intend to underline, it is that he does not see the link between these relationships that we call, for our part, “complexual” and the whole original constitution of what he claims to question, the function of the cause.

我打算強調的,並不是這個事實:他忽略精神分析經驗的這些因素。而且,皮亞傑對於精神分析的事情知之甚詳,不會不知道。我要強調的是,他沒有看出,就我們而言,所謂的「心理情結」的這些關係,以及他宣稱要質疑點整個原初的結構,原因的功用。

We will return to this language of the child. I pointed out to you that the new evidence of original works, which one can only be astonished were not performed up to now, allows us now to grasp in statu nascendi the first operation of the signifier in these hypnopompic monologues of the very small child, almost two years old, and to grasp in them – I will read you these texts at the proper time – in the fascinating form of the Oedipus complex itself here and now; already articulated, giving here the experimental proof of the idea that I always put forward to you that the unconscious is essentially the effect of the signifier.

我們將會回到小孩的這個語言。我跟你們指出,這些原創性的著作的這個新的證據,現在使我們能夠理解意符的第一個運作,原初形式的運作,在小孩身上的睡覺後的自言自語,這個小孩幾乎只有兩歲大。(直到目前,這些原創性的著作還沒有被運用,我們只有感慨萬千。在適當的時刻,我將會跟你們朗讀這些文本。)
我們能夠在這些自言自語裏去理解,此時此地,以伊底普斯情結的本身的迷人的形式。它已經被表達,在此提供試驗性的證據,證明我已經跟你們提出這個觀念:無意識基本上是意符的影響。

(14) I will finish in this connection with the position of the psychologists, for the work that I am speaking to you about is prefaced by a psychologist who is very attractive at first
sight in the sense that he admits that it has never happened that a psychologist has interested himself-in these functions starting from, he tells us – a psychologist’s own admission – from the supposition that nothing interesting is notable about the coming into play of language in the subject, except at the level of education: in effect it is something that is learned.

關於這一點,我將會以討論心理學家的立場作一總結。我正在跟你們談論的這部著作,由一位心理學家跟它寫序言。這位心理學家乍然看起來,非常引人注意,因為他承認:心理學家從來沒有對於起源於這個假設的這些功用感到興趣,(他告訴我們,一位心理學家自己承認。)這個假設是:關於生命主體身上的語言的運作,沒有什麼有趣的事情值得注意,除了在教育的層次上。事實上,這個語言的運作是學習而來的東西。

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: