In the apparatus of the psyche, the Thing represents the secret center of human desire, the nucleus of pleasure/unpleasure. This nucleus is opposed to the reality principle, which it threatens to undermine. The Thing, also called the "lost object," acts as the cause of desire and a sign of longing for an impossible reunion with the object.{{Top}}[[chose]]{{Bottom}}
Sigmund Freud first referred to [[Lacan]]'s [[discussion]] of the "[[Thing in 1895, in ]]"A Project for a Scientific Psychology" (1950a). He used constitutes one of the term again central themes in 1925 in his essay "Negation.the [[seminar]] of 1959-60 (''[[Seminars|L'éthique de la psychanalyse]]'' – " Jacques Lacan fully elaborated this Freudian notion in his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (1992]]"), where he uses the [[French]] term ''[[Thing|la chose]]'' interchangeably with the [[German]] term ''[[Thing|das Ding]]''. There are two main contexts in which this term operates.
An instance of the Thing develops from a complex set of cathected perceptions ==Word-Presentations and memory images that have given pleasure in the past. This set includes a stable kernel, called the Thing, and a variable element, or predicate. -Presentations==The first context is [[Freud]]'s [[distinction]] between "[[Thing arises in the primordial relation between the infant seeking fulfillment of its vital needs |word-presentations]]" (''[[Thing|Wort-vorstellungen]]'') and the primary caregiver, the "fellow being,[[Thing|thing-presentations]]" who is also the first hostile object(''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]''). The kernel or nucleus distinction is inaccessible to judgmentprominent in [[Freud]]'s metapsychological writings, while in which he argues that the predicate is two types of presentation are bound together in the object of a judgment that must verify whether [[preconscious]]-[[conscious]] [[system]], whereas in the memory image corresponds to reality[[unconscious|unconscious system]] only [[thing-presentations]] are found. In Lacanian psychoanalysis<ref>{{F}} "[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Unconscious]]", this process of judging forms the basis for the ego19l5e.[[SE]] XIV, 161</ref>
The Thing is situated in This seemed to some of [[Lacan]]'s contemporaries to offer an objection to [[Lacan]]'s theories [[about]] the [[linguistic|linguistic nature]] of the [[unconscious articulation of desire]]. [[Lacan]] counters such objections by pointing out that there are two [[words]] in [[German]] for "[[thing]]": ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' and ''[[Thing|die Sache]]''.<ref>{{S7}} p. In its origin62-3, it posits 44-5</ref> It is the latter term which [[Freud]] usually employs to refer to the [[thing-presentations]] in the Other as [[unconscious]], as the force withholding the signifier of satisfactionand [[Lacan]] argues that although on one level ''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]'' and ''[[Thing|Wortvorstellungen]]'' are opposed, while reality is subverted by in the [[symbolic function of memory traces of the lost object, from which the subject's desire is alienated|symbolic level]] "they go together".
JEANThus ''[[Thing|die Sache]]’’ is the [[representation]] of a [[thing]] in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], as opposed to ''[[thing|das Ding]]’’, which is the [[thing]] in its "dumb [[reality]]",<ref>{{S7}} p.55</ref> the [[thing]] in the [[real]], which is "the beyond-PAUL HILTENBRANDof-the-[[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]].
See also: <blockquote>"NegationThe Thing is characterised by the fact that it is [[impossible]] for us to imagine it."; Other, the; Subject's desire; Unary trait<ref>{{S7}} p.Bibliography125</ref></blockquote>
* Freud[[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of the [[Thing]] as an unknowable x, Sigmund. (1925h). Negation. SEbeyond [[symbolisation]], 19: 233-239. * ——. (1950c has clear affinities with the [[1895Kant]]). A project for a scientific psychology. SE, 1: 281ian "thing-387. * Lacan, Jacques. (1992). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 7: The ethics of psychoanalysis, 1959[[in-1960 (Dennis Porter, Trans.). New York: W. W. Nortonitself]]".
==''Jouissance''==
The second context is ''[[jouissance]]''. As well as the [[object]] of [[language]], ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' is the [[object]] of [[desire]]. 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 [[incest]]uous [[desire]], the [[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 [[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>
==''Objet petit a''== After the [[seminar]] of 1959-60, the term ''[[das Ding]]'' ==[[disappears]] almost entirely from [[Lacan]]'s discussion [[Work of Jacques Lacan|work]]. However, the [[ideas]] associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the ''[[objet petit a]]'' as [[Lacan]] develops it from 1963 onwards. For example the ''[[objet petit a]]''is circled by the [[drive]]<ref>{{S11}} p. 168</ref> and is seen as the Thing[[cause]] of [[desire]] just as ''[[thing|das Ding]]'' constitutes one is seen as "the cause of the central themes most fundamental [[human]] [[passion]]."<ref>{{S7}} p. 97</ref> Also, the fact that the [[Thing]] is not the [[imaginary]] [[object]] but firmly in the seminar [[register]] of 1959-60 (‘’L'éthique de la psychanalyse’’ – “the [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysisreal]]”), where he uses <ref>{{S2}} p. 112</ref> and yet is "that which in the French term ‘’la Chose’’ interchangeably with real suffers from the German term ‘’das Ding’’[[signifier]],"<ref>{{S7}} p. There are two main contexts 125</ref> anticipates the transition in [[Lacan]]'s [[thought]] towards locating ''[[objet petit a]]'' increasingly in which this term operatesthe [[register]] of the [[real]] from 1963 on.
The distinction between ==See Also=={{See}}* 'word-presentations' (‘’Wort- vorstellungen’’) and [[Jouissance]]'thing-presentations' (‘’Sachvorstellungen’’) is prominent in Freud* [[Language]]||* '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>'[[Objet petit a]]''* [[Unconscious]]{{Also}}
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’’ 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’’ is the representation of a thing in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’, which is the thing in its “dumb reality”,<ref>7, 55</ref> the thing in the [[real]], which is “the beyond-of-the-signified.”<ref>S7, 54</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]].
“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'.
==References==
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
[[Category:Symbolic]]
[[Category:Imaginary]]
[[Category:Real]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Terms]]
In his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis, Lacan sought to clarify Freud’s definition 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 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.What is repressed, argues Lacan, is this hard impenetrable core.This is always a core of 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). The Thing is the beyond of the signified – that which is unknowable in itself.It is something beyond symbolization, and therefore associated with the real, or as Lacan puts it, “the thing in 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 lost object, but paradoxically an object that was never there in the first place to be lost.”<ref>1992: 58</ref> As well as the object of [[language]], ‘’das Ding’’ is the [[object of desire]]. 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, 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 1959-60, the term ‘’das Ding’’ disappears almost entirely from Lacan's work. However, the ideas associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the ‘’[[objet 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 == 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 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. Symbolic representation--signification<i>--</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>. Conflating <i>das Ding</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. 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. 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.__NOTOC__
==Definition==During the second phase of [[Lacan]]’s teaching the [[real]] loses the sense of ‘thingness’ which his earlier conception had retained. In his [[seminar]] on the [[ethics]] of [[psychoanalysis]], [[Lacan]] sought to clarify [[Freud]]’s [[definition]] 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]]: [[word]]s, [[image]]s, [[feeling]]s?For [[Lacan]], what is [[repressed]] is not [[image]]s, [[word]]s or [[emotion]]s but something much more fundamental. [[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]]. What is [[repressed]], argues [[Lacan[[, is this hard impenetrable core. This is always a core of the [[real]] that is [[missing]] from the [[symbolic]] and all other [[representation]]s, [[image]]s and [[signifier]]s 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]]). The [[thing]] is the [[beyond]] of the [[signified]] – that which is [[unknowable]] in itself. It is something [[beyond]] [[symbolization]], and therefore associated with the [[real]], or as [[Lacan]] puts it, “the [[thing]] in 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 [[lost]] [[object]], but paradoxically an [[object]] that was never there in the first place to be [[lost]].”<ref>1992: 58</ref> 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 [[retrospective]]ly. The [[thing]] is ‘[[objective]]ly’ 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. == 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] == [[Kid A In Alphabet Land]] ==[[Image:Kida_t.gif |right|frame]]'''Kid A In Alphabet Land Trounces Another Two-Ton Travesty - The Traumatic Thing!''' It's A Freudian Thing - You Wouldn't Understand.[[Category:Kid A In Alphabet Land]] {{Footer Kid AEncore}}[[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]]p. 100 -->
