Anchoring wor(l)ds

June 2, 2008

On nézsi‘s blog, the author seems to require a proper definition of what constitutes reality- I think it is not that simple to answer that question. First of all, one should recognize that there is no answer. However, this assumption is just the beginning.

Her post ends with the question of what Lacan said about R/reality, on what criterias was his idea based? Well, it’s a long story, and not precise,as it can NOT be precise.

He alleges that we are screwed basically, as -at least in my understanding -we entered the realm of Symbolic, which updated our Imaginary(this should be the case, although there are cases where this update doesn’t happen ). To put it simply, once we’ve entered the world of language, we are disposed of describing the surrounding world. BUT! Let’s say, we would have the ability to describe the world (whatever that would mean), we would get stuck, as there would be as many reality-descriptions as many people.Why? Reality is perceived through our perceptory sensors, which -like it or not- modifiy the signals coming from the outer sphere. And this is the unalienable and insoluable problem for perception. If you think better of it, even if we were able to perceive reality 100%, how complex would be to discover  what it is?

Anyway, I’m gonna stop scratching the surface of this issue and let me finish with a metaphor that i have concocted: reality is like a champagne,where each bubble is another reality- not interfering with another, and the champagne itself is the unpenetrable agent.

for further indispensable reading,read Dick’s understanding.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Anchoring wor(l)ds”

  1. Dragon Z. Says:

    Er… would need some clarification. In Lacan, as much as I can recall, there’s no distinction bw “Reality” and “reality,” as they are pretty much the same: illusory matrix, the Symbolic, etc. This reality CAN be described and understood, as the entire structure is built for you to be able to assume some sense and significance about it. (Were you alluding to the distinction bw the great chain of signification as played out in the symbolic, called reality vs. the traumatic unknowable yet persistant Real?)

    Re: champagne: just let’s not forget that those bubbles may interefere and are closed into one bottle…

  2. kelemenzsolt Says:

    Exactly! I meant the distinction between the real (our understanding) and the Real (then this is the only Real according to Lacan?)
    great chain of signification: if i’m not mistaken, is this what Lacan illustrates with the example of the dictionary?

    Champagne, yes into one bottle, into a Klein-bottle, i must say:) but then what if they interfere? well, this is what i don’t know…

  3. Dragon Z. Says:

    dictionary? haven’t heard about this example… and yep, there’s only one Real for Lacan, the rest is reality 🙂

    and what if the bubbles interfere? ask Uri Geller… 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: