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.