Jacques Lacan and the Imaginary-Symbolic-Real
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- In this critical theory episode I want to introduce you to Jacques Lacan's concept of the imaginary-symbolic-real triad and also attempt to convince you that this triad is useful for thinking about fundamental problems of human consciousness.
Blog/transcript: cadelllast.com...
Sign up to mailing list for information about future content: www.philosophy...
Contact:
Become a Patreon: / cadelllast
Donate on Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Website: cadelllast.com
Email: cadell.last@gmail.com
Facebook: / cadellssphere
Twitter: / cadellnlast
Instagram: / lastcadell
Academia: vub.academia.e...
Research Gate: www.researchga...
Google Scholar: scholar.google...
Citations:
(1) Judge, A. 2017. Framing Global Transformation through the Polyhedral Merkabah. laetus in praesens. www.laetusinpr... (accessed: Feb 20 2018).
(2) Hegel, G.W.F. 1998. Phenomenology of Spirit. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
(3) Belfiore, F. 2014. The Triadic Structure of the Mind: Outlines of a Philosophical System, 2nd Edition.
(4) Lacan, J. 2014. Punctuations on Desire. In: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book X: Anxiety 1962-1963. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, Translated by A.R. Price. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 153.
(5) Lacan, J. 1999. Chapter VIII. Knowledge and Truth. In: On Feminine Sexuality, The Limits of Love and Knowledge, 1972-1973. Book XX. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. New York: W.W. Norton.
(6) Žižek, S. 2014. From Here to Den. In: Absolute Recoil: Towards a New Foundation for Dialectical Materialism. London: Verso.
(7) Penrose, R. 2004. The roots of science. In: The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Jonathan Cape.
Other resources:
NoSubject (Lacanian psychoanalysis Wiki): nosubject.com/M...
NoSubject (List of Algebraic Symbols): nosubject.com/L...
Extremely helpful!! I’d love to hear more about how Hegel influenced the motion of Lacan’s triad. That would prove to be an interesting topic
Thank you! I’m a grad student and this was very helpful in understanding my readings
7:28 is where the topic starts being addressed finally. These are bits of gold in a heap of sand. Thanks for the video anyway.
@Brian Nuckols I don't need to brush my mirror of specks of dust. It has been clean from the start. Words don't scratch the surface - mine, yours, no one's.
@Brian Nuckols Nope, it sends me automated messages so I know right away. I am a stranger to these psychoanalytic theories - and you can't even start a paper without at least some theoretical background - so I needed a quick crash course, that's why I came here in the first place.
no words to pass my boundless gratitude upon your contribution in
Another gift..."Something is taking It's course." From Samuel Beckett's "End Game"
I understood it up until the 'symbolic -> real' part :(
Just elaborate giving more example
Informative , thought provoking…well done!
Loll we watching this together
Excellent. Really very.intellectually.involving.
Here's a trapezoid. Imposing it on data derived from psychology proves you can project geometry on anything and it will "fit".
Incredibly clear - thank you !!!
Thanks for the intro; never would of thought of these ideas existing. I’ve seen these symbolic triads in many sciences/theories; never thought much of it until now. Even while studying math, there is a methods to think of problems such as analytic, geometric, and the set theoretic approach. I do believe in this interaction of methods or modes of thinking; maybe they do have a cause and effect. Or it helps us imply other ideas. I’ll have to get exposed to more of lacans work
Really excellent! Thank you!
Of course this triad is similar, if not exactly the same, of the Three Natures in Yogacara Buddhism, roughly 200-300 ce, which are the Imaginary, the other-dependent, and the True.
I don't get how we can find a hole in the real, since the real isn't actually represented in the immaginary or symbolic, i thought that was the definition of the real?
I’m not a student, but I take drugs and have an intense curiosity about the nature of reality.
Question: Do you suppose that during the experience of an effective dose of DMT (n,n-Dimethyltryptamine), what is happening is an exposure to The Real?
I asked my friend, who knows Lacan and takes these kinds of drugs too. In his opinion, the answer was “yes.”
After all, taking DMT seems to temporarily “destroy” The Imaginary and Symbolic registers (Which explains why talking about direct psychedelic experiences is notoriously difficult, as is remembering the climax/“peak” of the trip, after it’s finished).
It seems to fit Lacan’s definitions of what The Real is and is not. Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to speak of it, but I will say that it’s at once: powerful, beautiful, shockingly traumatic, loving, and absolutely impossible.
i dont think so
the real would be reality without interpretation, so if youre experiencing it, its not the real anymore.
i think what happens is a *change* in the symbolic and imaginary registers which allow you to see differences in the very foundation of our concept of reality, and then categorize and perceive things you usually wouldnt
you can experience the real by dying i guess
@@m39ap3dr0 Thanks for the response. Death is what got me thinking about DMT in the first place. When a Human (and most mammals, I believe) dies, it’s brain is saturated with DMT via the pineal gland. Consuming exogenous DMT seems to create the same effect (granted, this is likely unknowable. It certainly “feels” like dying might, though).
.... and another question...
when we sleep, we dream... is that not activity between the real and the imaginary... and actually symbolic as well?
Excellent video! Keep it up
ab8:20 symbolic is the transformation of the imaginary!!!
How would neuroscience miss our daily lives and activities? Neurons themselves are activated and work through that, our daily lives and activities are constructed by and construct our neurons. That's how we are, even though it seems like neuroscience is kind of deterministic as it may expose human complexity as just a function of billions of neurons, but at least that is a science - staying away from the dichotomy of hard-soft science - and empirical science that has proved itself. Why would we utilize lacanian triad if it is just of no real benefit because it's imagined and not real? I actually think that utilizing what may be just imaginary would cause more harm than benefit, we don't gain a better understanding of ourselves using fictions,. Yes we can integrate them as a part of our thought system, just as we believe in religion or paranormal things, but they're still a part of the very system we were trying to understand.
What is the scientific, empirical evidence showing that Lacan's theoretical assumptions are true?
What is the scientific, empirical evidence showing that Lacan's theoretical assumptions are [NOT] true? -Remember, if science is just based on the assumption of empirical evidence, you are just focused on one method. Science is not about one method, but methods. But if you are looking for "proofs" just keep an eye on the clinical improvement of Lacanian psychoanalysis, and how it works on people helping them to improve their lives.
@@jossedrincon-sanchez609 It shouldn't only improve their lives to count as evidence. It should improve their lives *substantally more* than ordinary conversations or regular psychotherapy do. I've never seen proof of that. And because Lacanians make outrageous claims, the burden of the proof is with them.
In which one of lacan’s books does he talk about the real, imagery, and symbolic ?
THANK YOU!
Does anybody of you experts know how and where to put the artist and the work of art in this scheme? Is it an attempt to go beyond the ordinary symbolic and imaginary to reach the Real but expresses itself still through new imaginary and new symbolic as Real? Is it possible that today the symbolic as super-ego is so thick and monolithic that art has become impossibile? Is the Real the search for Es that has become impossible for an hypertrophy of the symbolic (super-ego)?
Late answer based on my super basic understanding of Lacan: I think art traces the same path as language, namely imaginary > symbolic with the Real being obscured. Consider how art is treated as similar to language by semioticians and structuralists. Lacan was also hesitant to say much about art due to arts inherent social and historical functions. He did however comment that art is concerned with encircling the Thing, and did generally praise arts ability to transcend IIRC. I’m sure he would’ve used better words tho.
@@markvonniman4341 "Encircling the Thing"...it looks like a tension in-between.
do dogs fit into the triangle theory?
they certainly have "the real"(i guess all conscious beings have that)... and they have the ability to percieve the world and to understand symbolic communication.
i think they have the triangle.
Mind is traditionally associated soul from my understanding . I’d consider digging into rudolf Steiner if you find this interesting.
Interesting to apply this theory-layout to numerology, THREE being a power-number.
One of the best videos I've ever seen
Hello. Zizek considers the Penrose triad in Absolute Recoil.
Yup! If you see the citations listed I cite the section where Zizek makes reference to Penrose.
Man, I really love your scripts, I think youre a genius teacher, but I think your videos deserved better editing. Your edit is aesthetically pleasing, and I see exactly what you want with it. I dont think you should change your aesthetic, but pervert it a bit, with music and amped imagery. Also, your logo needs to fit a bit better with your project as well. I hope you see my comment as constructive criticism, because I really love your content and want to one day use it in classes for its elegance and easyness.
Hey Antonio, thanks so much for the constructive criticism :-)
I'm happy that you enjoy these videos and the aesthetic. And I agree with you that they could be edited better, that they could have better music/imagery, and maybe more creative effects in general. This, unfortunately, is not my area of expertise. I am an academic who is more used to writing for journal articles and theses then for designing artistic creative videos. However, I am also willing to learn as I continue to grow this channel! Do you have any advice on a program that would be easy to use/experiment with in order to make a more creative aesthetic product? At the moment I am using Keynote and using their built on recording program or using Quicktime to do screen recording. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks again :-)
I wish this can be discussed in a level of Literature where nomenclatures don't have to be involved.
Thank you very much
We don't "transform imaginary formations into symbolic ones" to "communicate". This is hilarious. For Lacan, the symbolic sequences control the imaginary. You are reading the arrows as causative links, while the causative connection goes the other way round. This video is 100% wrong from the start to the end...
Agreed. I always understood it as a simultaneous, nearly imperceptible, functioning of all three. Also, isnt the real in some cases an absolute encounter or event which presents itself as symbolically insurmountable? That is, an event which for one reason or another is completely unintelligible.
Brett Vincenzini the real can be equated with the impossible, the paradoxical, and that which resists or is as yet “symbolized”.
Defining what the Real is for Lacan is very dfficult, since he has changed his understanding of it during his teaching. The Real exists, doesn't "be". What exists is the One, thus there is no relation between the sexes. Jouissance exists as a bodily event, which exceeds symbolization. The Real is one's "sinthome".
I know this is no explanation, but at least it clearly marks the difference between what Lacan actually said and something else, maybe easier to understand but wholly inaccurate.
@@mobiditch6848 as in, that which resists integration into the symbolic order?
Lucas Siccardi I think your on to it. However, the sinthome is in fact a fourth ring added to the RSI. It is what would tie them together had they become unraveled.
well said
Lacan forgot the somatic! the world of experience itself beyond the abstractions created by the mind.
For example, if I get stabbed in the chest, my pain it is a Real connected to the realm of the somatic!
The same as if I detect a lion or snake in the forest, my somatic experience will react to it the same as a chimpanzee due to our evolutionary process.
I wonder why Lacan didn't took it on account.
Philosophy Search Lacan equates the somatic with the real. See Fink, The Lacanian Subject.
@@mobiditch6848 that sounds good. but i believe not every Real is somatic.
for example, Lacan said that the Symbolic can have an aproximation to the Real thru physics or mathematics.
So, there would be more than one Real. A Real of experience and a Real of the external word in which we study phenomenon.
Another example would be Jungian Archetypes, those are symbolic representations of experiential phenomenon in human beings that were reproduced across tribes and civilizations since the beginning of history, mythology is another form of Real within the culture.
Philosophy Search you’re actually describing the interaction of the imaginary (the signified) with the symbolic (the signifier) the real being that which is lost prior to the advent of subjectivity (linguistically as well as somatically) the real is that which has as yet been “symbolized”, a paradox, or aporia which is in operation at the limit of what can be said in distinction to “reality” which is sayable. The evocation of Jung, which from a literary point of view, a comparative survey if you will, is fascinating yet at odds with the Lacanian position in that the “codification” necessary to disambiguating a dream for instance into meaningful and comparable units across subjects is to ignore the idiosyncratic meanings (significations) produced by a singular subject. The Lacanian notion of subjectivity has for me interrupted the concept of code as it is formulated semiotically. Anyway the subject seems to in its peculiar way correlate an expression to a content despite the conventionality of code.
@@mobiditch6848 that sounds fascinating. I will try to articulate something.
I believe human beings have universal ways in which we construe subjetivity and this can vary from subject to subject (with their own shaped reality formed by Other, this is what Lacan studied mainly), but, because we are so embeded within those universals, it is very difficult to differentiate ourselves from them and take a look to see what those are (this was Jung's attempt), so we keep construing subjectivity from the Imaginary and Symbolic universals (Real) mixed with our own individual subjectivity shaped by intersubjective relationships but we are totally unconscious of it.
A nice way to look it is what Gnosticism call bipolar or dual nature. Everything seems to follow the same dual or bipolar rule within the symptom or psychological condition (experience) and the outside external world (men, women/day, night/positive, negative) even the way in which language is construed (this is what Derrida discovered on Deconstruction and language bipolar nature). Our universe and the way we construe it is bipolar, and that is a Real we can't escape.
Philosophy Search that would be true pre-oedipus yet Lacanian logic would suggest a rather more triangulated structure...the name of the father as introduced into the dyadic preoedipal. I think I see what you’re suggesting. A kind of thematic unified field theory. Of course finding the links in the rarified significations suggested by these conflicting approaches seems exhilarating (I myself have been given to imaginary flights) but ultimately doomed. I say this to not be negative but to suggest a negativity to the signifier which in its differential constitution functions as a sort of subatomic “particle”. The real for instance may be the sensation that accompanies the correlation of expression (signifier) to a content (signified) which as Lacan says; the subject is what one signifier represents to another signifier, a kind of negative space (or a positive unmarked substance between two (or more) marked negatives) depending on your viewpoint. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem comes to mind. We could collaborate on a performative piece of sculpture where we build an elaborate labyrinthian house of cards in a hurricane. Just for kicks!
I disagree from the get go...
None of this will ever make entire sense to me.
ラカンのシェーマ 象徴界、想像界、現実界、三位のトリアーデ。
The square root of -1 = the erectile organ
Things were going great until I heard the word 'Transcendental'......
Correct me if I am wrong but I went over the transcript (link in the description) and the context of the use of the word "transcendental" is in reference to how we can put Penrose's ontology into conversation with Zizek's ontology. Whereas Penrose utilizes a standard Platonic ontology where Ideas exist in an eternal "transcendental" space; Zizek utilizes a psychoanalyzed Plato where these Ideas should be read as forms internal to the surface of supransensible historical becoming.
@@PhilosophyPortal Fine. But my understanding is that Penrose's ontology is materialist, in that it doesn't appear to acknowledge the Kantian split between phenomena and noumena. If that is the case- and forgive me if I am misunderstanding this- how could it possibly be comparable to Zizekian ontology, when he states repeatedly across time that 'We are all Kantian?" How can the internalized forms of Zizek's psychoanalyzed transcendence relate to a Penrosian transcendance which is allegedly beyond phenomena, and thus belongs to the realm of the 'Real'?
@@bodhicitta111 hm. We may have slightly different readings of Penrose and Zizek, but these are extremely complex metaphysical topics so I would be surprised if we had complete agreement without really knowing the depth of each other's interpretations. Nevertheless, I'll try to piece together a coherent response your questions:
(1) As far as I am aware, Penrose's ontology is highly idealist. Penrose believes that mathematical Ideas exist in a transcendent eternal superspace independent of our material reality. He directly deploys the Platonic theology in "The Road to Reality" (see pages 20 and 1029). For Penrose he places not only mathematical Ideas in this space (represented as "truth") but also beauty (aesthetics) and morality (goodness). Thus, for Penrose, there is a physical world of evolving phenomena, there is a mental world of human subjectivity, and there is a transcendental world of eternal truths, beauty and goodness. We may say that this transcendent world of eternal truths, beauty and goodness is a pre-Kantian pre-critical metaphysics.
(2) In terms of your reference to Zizek saying "We are all Kantians" I would have to see the quote in its context. I know that Zizek's philosophy (from his Introduction to Less Than Nothing: ruclips.net/p/PLZpRs2zXm-Vfvx-T-pCVpcnDQCiGl2Xp7) focuses on the transition between Kant and Hegel. This transition is related to the structure and nature of the "things-in-themselves". For Zizek what happens between Kant and Hegel is that the noumenal beyond of Kant is transposed from an impossible ontological dimension which will never be known by human beings into a deontological dimension internal to the nature of human self-consciousness (what Freud called the unconscious). In other words, Kant's metaphysical speculative presupposition is taken from the outside into the inside. Thus, I suppose Zizek would say that Plato and Penrose's "Real" (eternal transcendental ideas) are really the unrecognized unconscious other side of human subjectivity (the absent, abyssal "less than nothing").
Hope that helps to clarify my response.
@@PhilosophyPortal "We are all Kantians" means that we don't believe we interact with the thing-in-itself anymore. And what happens between Kant and Hegel is not that the thing-in-itself is regained, but that it is finally left behind; in other words, the Kantian idea that phaenomena are structured by noumena is abandoned: that's the beginning of idealism.
The triad idea is not really cross-cultural/theoretical.
This is fine as an explanation of the Lacanian concepts, but avoid making claims about the universality of triads in human cultures (or the universality of almost anything in human cultures, frankly), because that's the sort of claim that's impossible to produce sufficient evidence to prove and easy to produce sufficient evidence to disprove. For example, you talk about "Abrahamic" religions believing in the "father, son, and holy ghost." The oldest and core "Abrahamic" religion, the one that Abraham was actually a member of-Judaism-has no such vision. The Jewish vision of God is absolute oneness. Ditto for that other major Abrahamic religion, Islam. Only Christianity ascribes that triad structure to the nature of God, and not even all Christians subscribe to it.
Yeah that made my woo-alarm go off
Things were going great till I heard the mispronunciation of psychoanalyst. The word is not 'psychoanalys-ist'. Hey, but maybe it'll catch on. I prefer pundits who can pronounce polysyllables.
Not well explained, & sprinkled with mistakes and errors
You're no zizek