The for-itself’s lack is internal to it, not imposed from outside

Evidence

The possible is the something which the For-itself lacks in order to be itself. Consequently it is not appropriate to say that it is qua possible—unless by being we are to understand the being of an existent which “is made-to-be” in so far as it is made-not-to-be, or if you prefer, the appearance at a distance of what I am. The possible does not exist as a pure representation, not even as a denied one, but as a real lack of being which, qua lack, is beyond being. It has the being of a lack and as lack, it lacks being. The Possible is not, the possible is possibilized to the exact degree that the For-itself makes itself be; the possible determines in schematic outline a location in the nothingness which the For-itself is beyond itself. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 387 (#expands, via linked claim)

In its second dimension of nihilation, the For-itself apprehends itself as a certain lack. It is this lack and it is also the lacking, for it has to be what it is. To drink or to be drinking means never to have finished drinking, to have still to be drinking beyond the drinking which I am. And when “I have finished drinking,” I have drunk: the ensemble slips into the past. While actually drinking, I am then this drinking which I have to be and which I am not; every designation of myself if it is to be heavy and full, if it is to have the density of the self-identical—every such designation escapes me into the past. If it reaches me in the Present, it is because it divides itself into the Not-yet; it is because it designates me as an unachieved totality which can not be achieved. This Not-yet is gnawed by the nihilating freedom of the For-itself. It is not only being-at-a-distance; it is the whittling down of being. Here the For-itself, which was in advance of itself in the first dimension of nihilation, is now behind itself. Before itself, behind itself: never itself. This is the very meaning of the two ekstases Past and Future, and this is why value in itself is by nature self-repose, non-temporality! — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 482 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The For-itself is a particular privation, not a general Nothingness.; The For-itself has only marginal, borrowed being derived from what it nihilates. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 48; The for-itself is originally dispersed outside itself and must seek its being elsewhere (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• The for-itself is originally dispersed outside itself and must seek its being elsewhere #expands (0.92)
• The possible is a real lack the For-itself projects beyond itself. #expands (0.88) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 387
• The For-itself is a lack temporally outstripping and lagging itself #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 482
• The for-itself is only the emptiness where the in-itself detaches #qualifies (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 576
• Elsewhere is an internal critical stance of refusing accommodation #exemplifies (0.78) — Eddie S. Glaude Jr., Begin Again, 431