Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Thing

949 bytes removed, 22:35, 23 August 2006
no edit summary
{{Top}}chose{{Bottom}}
[[Lacan]]'s discussion of "[[Thing|the Thing]]" constitutes one of the central themes in the [[seminar ]] of 1959-60 (‘’L''[[Seminars|L'éthique de la psychanalyse’’ psychanalyse]]'' "[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]"), where he uses the [[French ]] term ‘’la Chose’’ ''[[Thing|la Chose]]’’ interchangeably with the [[German ]] term ‘’das Ding’’''[[Thing|das Ding]]''.
There are two main contexts in which this term operates.
The distinction between 'word-presentations' (‘’Wort- vorstellungen’’) and 'thing-presentations' (‘’Sachvorstellungen’’) is prominent in Freud's metapsychological writings, in which he argues that the two types of presentation are bound together in the preconscious-conscious system, whereas in the unconscious system only thing-presentations are found.<ref>{{F}} 19l5e</ref>
This seemed to some of Lacan===One===The context is [[Freud]]'s contemporaries to offer an objection to Lacandistinction between "[[Thing|word-presentations]]" ('s theories about the linguistic nature of the unconscious. '[[Thing|Wort- vorstellungen]]'') and "[[Thing|thing-presentations]]" (''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]'')
Lacan counters such objections by pointing out The distinction is prominent in [[Freud]]'s metapsychological writings, in which he argues that there the two types of presentation are two words bound together in the [[preconscious]]-[[conscious]] system, whereas in German for 'the [[unconscious|unconscious system]] only [[thing': ‘’das Ding’’ and ‘’die Sache’’-presentations]] are found.<ref>{{S7F}} p.62-3, 44-519l5e</ref> It is the latter term which Freud usually employs to refer to the thing-presentations in the unconscious, and Lacan argues that although on one level ‘’Sachvorstellungen’’ and ‘’Wortvorstellungen’’ are opposed, in the symbolic level 'they go together'.
This seemed to some of [[Lacan]]'s contemporaries to offer an objection to [[Lacan]]'s theories about the [[linguistic|linguistic nature]] of the [[unconscious]].
Thus ‘’die Sache’’ is the representation of a thing [[Lacan]] counters such objections by pointing out that there are two words in the [[symbolicGerman]] for "[[orderthing]], as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’, which is the thing in its “dumb reality”,<ref>7, 55</ref> the thing in the ": ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' and ''[[realThing|die Sache]], which is “the beyond-of-the-signified''.<ref>{{S7}} p.5462-3, 44-5</ref>The thing-presentations found in the unconscious are thus still linguistic phenomena, as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’ which is entirely outside [[language]], and outside the [[unconscious]].
It is the latter term which [[Freud]] usually employs to refer to the [[thing-presentations]] in the [[unconscious]], and [[Lacan]] argues that although on one level ''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]'' and ''[[Thing|Wortvorstellungen]]'' are opposed, in the [[symbolic|symbolic level]] "they go together".
“The Thus ''[[Thing |die Sache]]’’ is characterised by the fact that it representation of a [[thing]] in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], as opposed to ''[[thing|das Ding]]’’, which is impossible for us to imagine it.”the [[thing]] in its "dumb reality",<ref>{{S7}} p.1255</ref>Lacan's concept of the Thing as an unknowable x[[thing]] in the [[real]], which is "the beyond symbolisation, has clear affinities with -of-the Kantian 'thing-in-itself'signified."<ref>{{S7}} p.54</ref>
The [[thing------presentation]]s found in the unconscious are thus still [[linguistics|linguistic phenomena]], as opposed to ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' which is entirely outside [[language]], and outside the [[unconscious]].
In his seminar on <blockquote>"The Thing is characterised by the ethics of psychoanalysis, Lacan sought fact that it is impossible for us to clarify Freud’s definition of the unconscious and especially the question of what is repressedimagine it."<ref>{{S7}} p.12</ref></blockquote>
For Freud there can be no unconscious without repression, but what exactly is it that is repressed: words, images, feelings?For [[Lacan]]'s concept of the [[Thing]] as an unknowable x, what is repressed is not iamgesbeyond [[symbolisation]], words or emotions but something much more fundamentalhas clear affinities with the [[Kant]]ian "thing-in-itself".
Freud hit upon this when, in ‘’[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]’’, he suggested that there was a hard impenetrable core of the dream – what he called the ‘navel’ of the dream – that is beyond interpretation.==Two==
What is repressed, argues Lacan, is this hard impenetrable coreThe context of ''[[jouissance]]''.
This is always a core As well as the [[object]] of the real that [[language]], ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' is missing from the symbolic and all other representations, images and signifiers are no more than attempts to fill this gap[[object of desire]].
In seminar VII Lacan identified this repressed element as ‘’the representative It is the [[castration|lost]] [[object]] which must be continually refound, it is the prehistoric, unforgettable [[Other]]<ref>{{S7}} p.53</ref> - in other words, the forbidden [[object]] of the representation’’[[incest]]uous [[desire]], or ‘’dad Ding’’ (the Thing)[[mother]].<ref>{{S7}} p.67</ref>
The [[pleasure principle]] is the [[law]] which maintains the [[subject]] at a certain distance from the [[Thing]],<ref>{{S7}} p.58, 63</ref> making the [[subject]] circle round it without ever attaining it.<ref>{{S7}} p.95</ref>
The [[Thing ]] is thus presented to the beyond of [[subject]] as his Sovereign Good, but if the signified – [[subject]] transgresses the [[pleasure principle]] and attains this Good, it is experienced as suffering/evil,<ref>[[Lacan]] plays on the [[French]] term ''mal'', which can mean both suffering and evil; {{S7}} p.179</ref> because the [[subject]] "cannot stand the extreme good that which is unknowable in itself''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' may bring to him."<ref>{{S7}} p.73</ref>
It is something beyond symbolizationfortunate, and therefore associated with then, that the real, or as Lacan puts it, “the thing in its dumb reality[[Thing]] is usually inaccessible.<ref>1992: 55{{S7}} p.59</ref>The Thing is a lost object that must be continually refound.
However, it is more importantly an ‘object that is nowhere articulated, it is a lost object, but paradoxically an object that was never there in the first place to be lost.”<ref>1992: 58</ref>----
As well as After the object of [[languageseminar]]of 1959-60, ‘’das Ding’’ is the term ''[[object of desiredas Ding]].  It is the lost object which must be continually refound, it is the prehistoric, unforgettable Other<ref>S7, 53</ref> - in other words, the forbidden object of incestuous desire, the mother.<ref>{{S7}} p.67</ref>The '' disappears almost entirely from [[pleasure principleLacan]] is the law which maintains the 's [[subjectWork of Jacques Lacan|work]] at a certain distance from the Thing,<ref>{{S7}} p.58, 63</ref> making the subject circle round it without ever attaining it.<ref>{{S7}} p.95</ref>The Thing is thus presented to the subject as his Sovereign Good, but if the subject transgresses the pleasure principle and attains this Good, it is experienced as suffering/evil,<ref>Lacan plays on the French term ''mal'', which can mean both suffering and evil; {{S7}} p.179</ref> because the subject “cannot stand the extreme good that ''das Ding'' may bring to him.”<ref>{{S7}} p.73</ref>  It is fortunate, then, that the Thing is usually inaccessible.<ref>{{S7}} p.59</ref> ----
After However, the ideas associated with it provide the seminar essential features of the new developments in the concept of 1959-60, the term ‘’das Ding’’ disappears almost entirely ''[[objet petit a]]'' as [[Lacan]] develops it from Lacan's work1963 onwards.
However, For example the ideas associated with it provide ''[[objet petit a]]'' is circled by the essential features of [[drive]]<ref>{{S11}} p.168</ref> and is seen as the new developments in the concept [[cause]] of the ‘’[[objet petit adesire]] just as ''[[thing|das Ding]]’’ '' is seen as Lacan develops it from 1963 onwards"the cause of the most fundamental human passion."<ref>{{S7}} p. 97</ref>
For example Also, the ‘’objet petit a’’ fact that the [[Thing]] is circled by not the [[imaginary]] [[object]] but firmly in the [[register]] of the [[drivereal]], <ref>{{S11S2}} p.168112</ref> and yet is seen as "that which in the cause of desire just as ‘’das Ding’’ is seen as “the cause of real suffers from the most fundamental human passion.”signifier,"<ref>{{S7}} p.97125</ref>anticipates the transition in [[Lacan]]'s thought towards locating ''[[objet petit a]]'' increasingly in the [[register]] of the [[real]] from 1963 on.
==See Also, the fact that the Thing is not the imaginary object but firmly in the register of the real, <ref>=={{S2See}} p.112</ref> and yet is “that which in the real suffers from the signifier,”<ref>{{S7Also}} p.125</ref> anticipates the transition in Lacan's thought towards locating objet petit a mcreasingly in the register of the real from 1963 on.
==References==
24,396
edits

Navigation menu