Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Thing

5,234 bytes removed, 02:30, 21 May 2019
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).
== {{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'.
<blockquote>"The Thing is characterised by the fact that it is [[impossible]] for us to imagine it."<ref>{{S7}} p. 125</ref></blockquote>
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>
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 ''[[Thing|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>
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.}}
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==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__
Lacanintroduces<i>das Ding</i> in his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis(<u>Seminar VII</u>, 1959!-60, 1992). He conceptualizes it as the primordialnothingness against which signification emerges. <i>Das Ding</i> however,is not simply "nothing." To the extent that it carries the resonance ofan incestuous mother-child unity, it is so highly cathected that contactor even close proximity is intensely painful{{Encore}} p. Symbolic representation--signification<i>100 --</i>as such, emerges as a defense, a means of establishinga tolerable distance from<i>das Ding</i>. After this seminar, Lacan appearsto 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 associatedwith the mother, they are often used synonymously; where the <i>objet petita</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>dasDing</i> with the <i>objet petit a,</i> however, is problematic from theperspective of psychosis. To the extent that the <i>objet petit a</i> isestablished 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 petita</i> is the nothingness against which signification emerges, then howcan the psychotic, who by definition has <i>not</i> acceded into the SymbolicOrder, speak (and speak incessantly)? As this analysis will demonstrate,this nothingness must still be understood as <i>das Ding</i>. My principalintervention however, is to demonstrate that not only is the psychoticThing (<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 beunderstood when situated within a dialectical framework.</font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman,Times"><font color="#000000">To furtherillustrate 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 SymbolicOrder, it is not eliminated. Sublated, the oedipalized (barred) subjecthas an "extimate" relation to<i>das Ding</i>, i.e., the object of desire/horrorexists as the structural center only to the extent that it is absent (thebasic principle of desire). Metaphorically negated, <i>das Ding</i> existssymbolically, i.e., it functions via positionality. If we maintain ourdistance, we experience it as the <i>objet petit a</i>, i.e., as the objectof 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 thespace 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 objectcirculates (extimately) within the Symbolic, i.e., at the sublated levelof metaphor, it can be<i>moved out</i> of the space of desire/horror viasymbolization. In short, the sublation of <i>das Ding</i> establishes themetaphoric distance necessary for a distinct (delineated) sense of self.</font></font><br>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p> == See Also==[http://www.psychomedia.it/jep/number3-4/fachinelli.htm http://www.psychomedia.it/jep/number3-4/fachinelli.htm][http://www.congressodeconvergencia.com/JACQUES%20LACAN%20AND%20THE%20LACK%20OF%20OBJECT-INGLES.htm http://www.congressodeconvergencia.com/JACQUES%20LACAN%20AND%20THE%20LACK%20OF%20OBJECT-INGLES.htm]
Anonymous user

Navigation menu