Changes

== ''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’’ – “{{Top}}[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysischose]]”), 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.{{Bottom}}

The distinction between [[Lacan]]'words [[discussion]] of the "[[Thing]]" constitutes one of the central themes in the [[seminar]] of 1959-presentations60 (' (‘’Wort- vorstellungen’’) and 'thing-presentations[[Seminars|L'éthique de la psychanalyse]]'' (‘’Sachvorstellungen’’– "[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]") is prominent in Freud's metapsychological writings, in which where he argues that uses the [[French]] term ''[[Thing|la chose]]'' interchangeably with the [[German]] term ''[[Thing|das Ding]]''. There are two types of presentation are bound together main contexts in the preconscious-conscious system, whereas in the unconscious system only thing-presentations are foundwhich this term operates.<ref>Freud, 19l5e</ref>

This seemed to some of Lacan==Word-Presentations and Thing-Presentations==The first context is [[Freud]]'s contemporaries to offer an objection to Lacan[[distinction]] between "[[Thing|word-presentations]]" (''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|Wort-vorstellungen]]'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|thing-presentations ]]" (''[[Thing|Sachvorstellungen]]''). The distinction is prominent in the unconscious[[Freud]]'s metapsychological writings, and Lacan in which he argues that although on one level ‘’Sachvorstellungen’’ and ‘’Wortvorstellungen’’ the two types of presentation are opposed, in the symbolic level 'they go bound together'.Thus ‘’die Sache’’ is the representation of a thing in the [[symbolicpreconscious]]-[[conscious]] [[ordersystem]], as opposed to ‘’das Ding’’, which is the thing in its “dumb reality”,<ref>7, 55</ref> the thing whereas in the [[realunconscious|unconscious system]], which is “the beyondonly [[thing-of-the-signifiedpresentations]] are found.”<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 {{F}} "[[languageWorks of Sigmund Freud|The Unconscious]]", and outside the 19l5e. [[unconsciousSE]]. “The Thing is characterised by the fact that it is impossible for us to imagine it.”<ref>87XIV, 12161</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 Thus ''[[Thing|die Sache]]’’ is the ethics [[representation]] of psychoanalysisa [[thing]] in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], Lacan sought as opposed 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''[[thing|das Ding]]’’, but what exactly which is it that is repressed: wordsthe [[thing]] in its "dumb [[reality]]", images, feelings?For Lacan, what is repressed is not iamges, words or emotions but something much more fundamental<ref>{{S7}} p.Freud hit upon this when, 55</ref> the [[thing]] in ‘’the [[The Interpretation of Dreamsreal]]’’, he suggested that there was a hard impenetrable core of which is "the dream – what he called the ‘navel’ beyond-of -the dream – that is beyond interpretation-[[signified]].What is repressed, argues Lacan, is this hard impenetrable core"<ref>{{S7}} p.This is always a core of 54</ref> The [[thing-presentation]]s found in the real that [[unconscious]] are thus still [[linguistics|linguistic phenomena]], as opposed to ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' which is missing from the symbolic and all other representationsentirely [[outside]] [[language]], images and signifiers are no more than attempts to fill this gap.In seminar VII Lacan identified this repressed element as ‘’the representative of [[outside]] the representation’’, or ‘’dad Ding’’ (the Thing)[[unconscious]].

<blockquote>"The Thing is characterised by the beyond of the signified – fact that which it is unknowable in itself.It is something beyond symbolization, and therefore associated with the real, or as Lacan puts [[impossible]] for us to imagine it, “the thing in its dumb reality.”"<ref>1992: 55{{S7}} p. 125</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</refblockquote>

==''Jouissance''==The second context is ''[[jouissance]]''. As well as the [[object ]] of [[language]], ‘’das Ding’’ ''[[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 incestuous [[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, 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 [[Thing]] is thus presented to the seminar of 1959-60[[subject]] as his Sovereign [[Good]], but if the term ‘’das Ding’’ disappears almost entirely from Lacan's work. However, the ideas associated with it provide [[subject]] transgresses the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the ‘’[[objet petit apleasure principle]]’’ as Lacan develops and attains this Good, it from 1963 onwards. For example the ‘’objet petit a’’ is circled by the experienced as [[drivesuffering]]/evil,<ref>Sll, 168[[Lacan]] plays on the [[French]] term ''mal'',which can mean both suffering and [[evil]]; {{S7}} p. 179</ref> and is seen as because the cause of desire just as ‘’das Ding’’ is seen as “the cause of [[subject]] "cannot stand the most fundamental human passionextreme good that ''[[Thing|das Ding]]'' may bring to him.”"<ref>{{S7, 97}} p. 73</ref>Also It is fortunate, then, 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,”usually inaccessible.<ref>{{S7, 125}} p. 59</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 ==''Objet petit a''==After the [[seminar]] of 1959-60, the term ''[[das Ding]]'' [[disappears]] almost entirely from [[Lacan]]'s [[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 [[cause]] of [[desire]] just as ''[[thing|das Ding]]'' is “the seen as "the cause of the most fundamental [[human passion”;]] [[passion]]."<ref>1992, 1986, {{S7}} p. 97</ref> it Also, the fact that the [[Thing]] is not the [[imaginary]] [[object-cause ]] but firmly in the [[register]] of desire the [[real]], <ref>{{S2}} p. 112</ref> and can only be constituted retrospectivelyyet is "that which in the real suffers from the [[signifier]],"<ref>{{S7}} p.The Thing is ‘objectively’ speaking ‘’no-thing’’; it is only something 125</ref> anticipates the transition in [[Lacan]]'s [[thought]] towards locating ''[[objet petit a]]'' increasingly in relation to the desire that constitutes it[[register]] of the [[real]] from 1963 on.

After the seminar of 1959-60 the concept of ‘’das Ding’’ was replaced by the idea of the ‘’objet ==See Also=={{See}}* ''[[Jouissance]]''* [[Language]]||* ''[[Objet petit a’’.a]]''* [[Unconscious]]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.{{Also}}

Lacanintroduces==References==<i>das Ding</idiv style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> in his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis(<u>Seminar VII<references/u>, 1959-60, 1992). He conceptualizes it as the primordialnothingness against which signification emerges. <i>Das Ding</idiv> however,is not simply "nothing." To the extent that it carries the resonance of[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]an incestuous mother-child unity, it is so highly cathected that contact[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]or even close proximity is intensely painful. [[Category: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 appears[[Category:Imaginary]]to abandon <i>das Ding</i> and instead focuses on the <i>objet petit a</i>.[[Category:Real]]Because <i>das Ding</i> and the <i>objet petit a</i> are both associated[[Category:Dictionary]]with the mother, they are often used synonymously; where the <i>objet petit[[Category:Concepts]]a</i> is seen as simply a later term for[[Category:Terms]]

(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] == [[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 -->