Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Thing

3,780 bytes added, 06:38, 12 May 2006
no edit summary
== def ==
 
Lacan
introduces
<i>das Ding</i> in his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis
(<u>Seminar VII</u>, 1959-60, 1992). He conceptualizes it as the primordial
nothingness against which signification emerges. <i>Das Ding</i> however,
is not simply "nothing." To the extent that it carries the resonance of
an incestuous mother-child unity, it is so highly cathected that contact
or even close proximity is intensely painful. Symbolic representation--
signification<i>--</i>as such, emerges as a defense, a means of establishing
a tolerable distance from
<i>das Ding</i>. After this seminar, Lacan appears
to abandon <i>das Ding</i> and instead focuses on the <i>objet petit a</i>.
Because <i>das Ding</i> and the <i>objet petit a</i> are both associated
with the mother, they are often used synonymously; where the <i>objet petit
a</i> is seen as simply a later term for
 
<i>das Ding</i>.</font></font>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,Times"><font color="#000000">Conflating
<i>das
Ding</i> with the <i>objet petit a,</i> however, is problematic from the
perspective of psychosis. To the extent that the <i>objet petit a</i> is
established through the second division,<sup><a href="#N_1_">(1)</a></sup>
i.e., accession into the Symbolic Order, it does not exist for the psychotic.
This problematic can be summed up in one question: if the <i>objet petit
a</i> is the nothingness against which signification emerges, then how
can the psychotic, who by definition has <i>not</i> acceded into the Symbolic
Order, speak (and speak incessantly)? As this analysis will demonstrate,
this nothingness must still be understood as <i>das Ding</i>. My principal
intervention however, is to demonstrate that not only is the psychotic
Thing (<i>das Ding</i>) qualitatively different than the Symbolic Thing,
the Symbolic Thing is qualitatively different than the <i>objet petit a</i>
 
(the small <i>a</i>). And furthermore, that this difference can only be
understood when situated within a dialectical framework.</font></font>
</p><p><font face="Times New Roman,Times"><font color="#000000">To further
illustrate this point, it is important to keep in mind that sublation (<i>aufheben</i>)
not only cancels (<i>tollere</i>), but elevates (<i>elevare</i>) and preserves
(<i>conserve</i>). Therefore, while <i>das Ding</i> is sublated (negated),
and as such qualitatively changed through the accession into the Symbolic
Order, it is not eliminated. Sublated, the oedipalized (barred) subject
has an "extimate" relation to
<i>das Ding</i>, i.e., the object of desire/horror
exists as the structural center only to the extent that it is absent (the
basic principle of desire). Metaphorically negated, <i>das Ding</i> exists
symbolically, i.e., it functions via positionality. If we maintain our
distance, we experience it as the <i>objet petit a</i>, i.e., as the object
of pleasure. If we get too close, we experience it as <i>das Ding</i>,
i.e., the object of uncanny horror. Finally, if it is removed from the
space of fantasy, it is reduced to just another banal object, and as such,
no longer functions as the repository of our desire/horror.</font></font>
 
</p><p><font face="Times New Roman,Times"><font color="#000000">Conversely,
the psychotic's relation to <i>das Ding</i> is (painfully)
<i>intimate</i>,
and is characterized by the proliferation of unbarred Imaginary Others(A)
from which it cannot escape. Put another way, to the extent that the object
circulates (extimately) within the Symbolic, i.e., at the sublated level
of metaphor, it can be
<i>moved out</i> of the space of desire/horror via
symbolization. In short, the sublation of <i>das Ding</i> establishes the
metaphoric distance necessary for a distinct (delineated) sense of self.</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
</p>
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu