Changes

== {{Top}}[[Kid A In Alphabet Landchose]] ==[[Image:Kida_t.gif |right|frame]]'''Kid A In Alphabet Land Trounces Another Two-Ton Travesty - The Traumatic Thing!'''{{Bottom}}

It[[Lacan]]'s A Freudian [[discussion]] of the "[[Thing ]]" constitutes one of the central themes in the [[seminar]] of 1959- You Wouldn60 (''[[Seminars|L'éthique de la psychanalyse]]'' – "[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]"), where he uses the [[French]] term ''[[Thing|la chose]]'' interchangeably with the [[German]] term ''t Understand.[[Category:Kid A In Alphabet LandThing|das Ding]]''. There are two main contexts in which this term operates.

== ''das Ding'' Word-Presentations and Thing-Presentations==LacanThe first context is [[Freud]]'s discussion of [[distinction]] between "[[Thing|word-presentations]]" (''the [[Thing|Wort-vorstellungen]]' constitutes one of the central themes in the seminar of 1959') and "[[Thing|thing-60 presentations]]" (‘’L'éthique de la psychanalyse’’ – “'[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]''). The Ethics of Psychoanalysisdistinction is prominent in [[Freud]]”)'s metapsychological writings, where in which he uses argues that the French term ‘’la Chose’’ interchangeably with two types of presentation are bound together in the German term ‘’das Ding’’[[preconscious]]-[[conscious]] [[system]], whereas in the [[unconscious|unconscious system]] only [[thing-presentations]] are found. There are two main contexts in which this term operates<ref>{{F}} "[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Unconscious]]", 19l5e.[[SE]] XIV, 161</ref>

The distinction between This seemed to some of [[Lacan]]'word-presentations' (‘’Wort- vorstellungen’’) and 'thing-presentations' (‘’Sachvorstellungen’’) is prominent in Freuds contemporaries to offer an objection to [[Lacan]]'s metapsychological writings, in which he argues that theories [[about]] the two types [[linguistic|linguistic nature]] of presentation the [[unconscious]]. [[Lacan]] counters such objections by pointing out that there are bound together in the preconscious-conscious system, whereas two [[words]] in the unconscious system only [[German]] for "[[thing-presentations are found]]": ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' and ''[[Thing|die Sache]]''.<ref>Freud{{S7}} p. 62-3, 19l5e44-5</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 ''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]'' and ''[[Thing|Wortvorstellungen]]'' are opposed, in the [[symbolic|symbolic level]] "they go together".

This seemed to some of LacanThus '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’’ and ‘’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’’ and ‘’Wortvorstellungen’’ are opposed, in the symbolic level 'they go together'.Thus ‘’die Sache’’ [[Thing|die Sache]]’’ is the [[representation ]] of a [[thing ]] in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’''[[thing|das Ding]]’’, which is the [[thing ]] in its “dumb reality”"dumb [[reality]]",<ref>7, {{S7}} p.55</ref> the [[thing ]] in the [[real]], which is “the "the beyond-of-the-[[signified]].”"<ref>{{S7, }} p.54</ref> The [[thing-presentations presentation]]s found in the [[unconscious ]] are thus still [[linguistics|linguistic phenomena]], as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’ ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' which is entirely [[outside ]] [[language]], and [[outside ]] the [[unconscious]]. “The Thing is characterised by the fact that it is impossible for us to imagine it.”<ref>87, 12</ref>Lacan's concept of the Thing as an unknowable x, beyond symbolisation, has clear affinities with the Kantian 'thing-in-itself'.

In his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis, [[Lacan sought to clarify Freud’s definition ]]'s [[concept]] of the 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, what is repressed is not iamges, words or emotions but something much more fundamental.Freud hit upon this when, in ‘’[[The Interpretation of DreamsThing]]’’as an unknowable x, he suggested that there was a hard impenetrable core of the dream – what he called the ‘navel’ of the dream – that is beyond interpretation.What is repressed, argues Lacan[[symbolisation]], is this hard impenetrable core.This is always a core of has clear affinities with the real that is missing from the symbolic and all other representations, images and signifiers are no more than attempts to fill this gap.In seminar VII Lacan identified this repressed element as ‘’the representative of the representation’’, or ‘’dad Ding’’ (the Thing)[[Kant]]ian "thing-[[in-itself]]".

==''Jouissance''==The second context is ''[[jouissance]]''. As well as the [[object]] of [[language]], ''[[Thing |das Ding]]'' is the beyond [[object]] of the signified – that which is unknowable in itself[[desire]]. It is something beyond symbolization, and therefore associated with the real[[castration|lost]] [[object]] which must be continually refound, or as Lacan puts itis the prehistoric, “the thing unforgettable [[Other]]<ref>{{S7}} p.53</ref> - in its dumb realityother words, the [[forbidden]] [[object]] of [[incest]]uous [[desire]], the [[mother]].”<ref>1992: 55{{S7}} p. 67</ref> The Thing [[pleasure principle]] is the [[law]] which maintains the [[subject]] at a lost object that must be continually refoundcertain distance from the [[Thing]],<ref>{{S7}} p.However58, 63</ref> making the [[subject]] circle round it is more importantly an ‘object that is nowhere articulated, without ever attaining it is a lost object, but paradoxically an object that was never there in the first place to be lost.”<ref>1992: 58{{S7}} p. 95</ref>

As well as ==''Objet petit a''==After the object [[seminar]] of 1959-60, the term ''[[das Ding]]'' [[disappears]] almost entirely from [[languageLacan]]'s [[Work of Jacques Lacan|work]]. However, ‘’das Ding’’ is the [[object ideas]] associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of desirethe ''[[objet petit a]]'' as [[Lacan]]develops it from 1963 onwards. It is For example the lost object which must be continually refound, it ''[[objet petit a]]'' is circled by the prehistoric, unforgettable Other[[drive]]<ref>S7, 53{{S11}} p. 168</ref> - in other words, and is seen as the forbidden object [[cause]] of incestuous [[desire, ]] just as ''[[thing|das Ding]]'' is seen as "the cause of the mothermost fundamental [[human]] [[passion]]."<ref>{{S7, 67}} p. 97</ref>The Also, the fact that the [[pleasure principleThing]] is not the law which maintains [[imaginary]] [[object]] but firmly in the [[subjectregister]] at a certain distance from of the Thing[[real]],<ref>S7, 58, 63</ref> making the subject circle round it without ever attaining it{{S2}} p.<ref>S7, 95112</ref>The Thing and yet is thus presented to "that which in the subject as his Sovereign Good, but if real suffers from the subject transgresses the pleasure principle and attains this Good, it is experienced as suffering/evil[[signifier]],"<ref>Lacan plays on the French term mal, which can mean both suffering and evil, see {{S7, 179}} p. 125</ref> because anticipates the subject “cannot stand transition in [[Lacan]]'s [[thought]] towards locating ''[[objet petit a]]'' increasingly in the extreme good that ‘’das Ding’’ may bring to him.”<ref>S7, 73</ref> It is fortunate, then, that [[register]] of the Thing is usually inaccessible[[real]] from 1963 on.<ref>S7, 159</ref>

After the seminar of 1959-60, the term ‘’das Ding’’ disappears almost entirely from Lacan==See Also=={{See}}* ''[[Jouissance]]''s work. However, the ideas associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the ‘’* [[Language]]||* ''[[objet Objet petit a]]’’ as Lacan develops it from 1963 onwards. ''For example the ‘’objet petit a’’ is circled by the * [[driveUnconscious]]<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.}}

After the seminar of 1959==References==<div style="font-60 the concept of ‘’das Ding’’ was replaced by the idea of the ‘’objet petit a’’.size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>[[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Symbolic]][[Category:Imaginary]][[Category:Real]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Concepts]]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.[[Category:Terms]]

== def ==__NOTOC__ <!-- {{Encore}} p. 100 -->