Changes

== [[Kid A In Alphabet Land]] ==[[Image:Kida_t.gif |right|frame]]'''Kid A In Alphabet Land Trounces Another Two-Ton Travesty - The Traumatic Thing (chose) !'''

LacanIt's discussion of 'the A Freudian Thing- You Wouldn' constitutes one of the central themes in the seminar of 1959-60, where he uses the French term la chose interchangeably with the German term das Ding. There are two main contexts in which this term operatest Understand.[[Category:Kid A In Alphabet Land]]

1== ''das Ding'' ==Lacan's discussion of 'the Thing' constitutes one of the central themes in the seminar of 1959-60 (‘’L'éthique de la psychanalyse’’ – “[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]”), where he uses the French term ‘’la Chose’’ interchangeably with the German term ‘’das Ding’’. There are two main contexts in which this term operates.  The context of Freud's distinction between 'word-presentations' (Wort‘’Wort- vorstellungenvorstellungen’’) and 'thing-presentations' (Sachvorstellungen‘’Sachvorstellungen’’). This distinction 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>Freud, 19l5e). </ref> This seemed to some of Lacan's contemporaries to offer an objection to Lacan's theories about the linguistic nature of the unconscious. Lacan counters such objections by pointing out that there are two words in German for 'thing': das Ding ‘’das Ding’’ and die Sache (‘’die Sache’’.<ref>see S7, 62-3, 44-5). </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 ‘’Sachvorstellungen’’ and Wortvorstellungen ‘’Wortvorstellungen’’ are opposed, on in the symbolic level 'they go together'.Thus die Sacheis ‘’die Sache’’ is the representation of a thing in the sym˛olic [[symbolic]] [[order]], as opposed to das Ding‘’das Ding’’, which is the thing in its 'dumb reality' ($“dumb reality”,<ref>7, 55æthe 55</ref> the thing in the [[real]], which is 'the “the beyond-of-the-signified' (.”<ref>S7, 54) </ref>The thing-presentations found in the unconscious are thus still linguistic phÈnomenaphenomena, as opposed to das Ding ‘’das Ding’’ which is entirely outside [[language]], and outside the [[unconscious]]. 'The Thin “The Thing is characterised by the fact that it is impossible for us to imagine it' (.”<ref>87, 12 .</ref>

After In his seminar on the seminar ethics of 1959-60psychoanalysis, Lacan sought to clarify Freud’s definition of the term das Ding disappears almost entirely from unconscious and especially the question of what is repressed.For Freud there can be no unconscious without repression, but what exactly is it that is repressed: words, images, feelings?For Lacan's work, what is repressed is not iamges, words or emotions but something much more fundamental. HoweverFreud hit upon this when, in ‘’[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]’’, the ideas associated with it provide the essential features he suggested that there was a hard impenetrable core of the new developments in dream – what he called the concept ‘navel’ of the objet petit a as dream – that is beyond interpretation.What is repressed, argues Lacan develops it from 1963 onwards, is this hard impenetrable core. For example This is always a core of the objet petit a real that is circled by missing from the drive (Sll, 168)symbolic and all other representations, images and is seen as the cause of desire justsignifiers are no more than attempts to fill this gap.asdas Ding is seen In seminar VII Lacan identified this repressed element as 'the cause ‘’the representative of the most fundamental human passion' representation’’, or ‘’dad Ding’’ (S7, 97the Thing). Also, the fact that the  The Thing is not the imaginary object but firmly in the register beyond of the reaL(S2, l 12), and yet is 'signified – that which is unknowable in itself.It is something beyond symbolization, and therefore associated with the real suffers from the signifier' (S7, 125)or as Lacan puts it, anticipates the transition “the thing in Lacan's thought towards locating objet petit its dumb reality.”<ref>1992: 55</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 mcreasingly lost object, but paradoxically an object that was never there in the register of the real from 1963 onfirst place to be lost.”<ref>1992: 58</ref>

As well as the object of [[language]], ‘’das Ding’’ is the [[object of desire]]. It's A Freudian 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, 67</ref>The [[pleasure principle]] is the law which maintains the [[subject]] at a certain distance from the Thing,<ref>S7, 58, 63</ref> making the subject circle round it without ever attaining it.<ref>S7, 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, see S7, 179</ref> because the subject “cannot stand the extreme good that ‘’das Ding’’ may bring to him.”<ref>S7, 73</ref> It is fortunate, then, that the Thing is usually inaccessible.<ref>S7, 159</ref> After the seminar of 1959- You Wouldn60, the term ‘’das Ding’’ disappears almost entirely from Lacan't Understands work.However, the ideas associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the ‘’[[Category:Kid A In Alphabet Landobjet petit a]]’’ as Lacan develops it from 1963 onwards. For example the ‘’objet petit a’’ is circled by the [[drive]]<ref>Sll, 168,</ref> and is seen as the cause of desire just as ‘’das Ding’’ is seen as “the cause of the most fundamental human passion.”<ref>S7, 97</ref>Also, the fact that the Thing is not the imaginary object but firmly in the register of the real, <ref>S2, l 12</ref> and yet is “that which in the real suffers from the signifier,”<ref>S7, 125</ref> anticipates the transition in Lacan's thought towards locating objet petit a mcreasingly in the register of the real from 1963 on. The Thing is “the cause of the most fundamental human passion”;<ref>1992, 1986, 97</ref> it is the object-cause of desire and can only be constituted retrospectively.The Thing is ‘objectively’ speaking ‘’no-thing’’; it is only something in relation to the desire that constitutes it. After the seminar of 1959-60 the concept of ‘’das Ding’’ was replaced by the idea of the ‘’objet petit a’’.It is the desire of the subject fo fill the emptiness or void at the core of subjectivity and the symbolic that creates the Thing, as opposed to the loss of some original Thing creating the desire to find it. == def ==