[[Imaginary]], [[Symbolic]], [[Real]] ([[imaginaire]], [[symbolique]], [[réel]])
Of these [[three]] [[terms]], the 'imaginary' was the first to appear, well before the Rome Report of 1953.
At the [[time]], [[Lacan]] regarded the '[[imago]]' as the proper study of [[psychology]] and [[identification]] as the fundamental [[psychical]] [[process]].
[[The imaginary]] was then the [[world]], the [[register]], the [[dimension]] of [[images]], [[conscious]] or [[unconscious]], perceived or imagined.
In this respect, 'imaginary' is not simply the opposite of 'real': the [[image]] certainly belongs to [[reality]] and Lacan sought in [[animal]] [[ethology]] facts that brought out formative effects comparable to that described in 'the [[mirror]] [[stage]].'
ImagianryThe [[notion]] of the 'symbolic' came to the forefront in the Rome Report. The [[symbols]] referred to here are not icons, stylized figurations, but [[signifiers]], in the [[sense]] developed by [[Saussure]] and [[Jakobson]], Symbolicextended into a generalized definition: differential elements, Real (Imaginairein themselves without [[meaning]], symoliquewhich acquire [[value]] only in their mutual relations, rEel)and forming a closed [[order]] - the question is whether this order is or is not [[complete]].Of these three termsHenceforth it is [[the symbolic]], not the 'imaginary' was the first , that is seen to appear, well before be the Rome Report determining order of 1953.At the time[[subject]], and its effects are radical: the subject, in Lacan regarded 's sense, is himself an effect of the symbolic.Levi-[[Strauss]]'imagos [[formalization]] of the elementary [[structures]] of kinship and its use of Jakobson' as s binarism provided the proper study basis for Lacan's conception of psychology and identification as the fundamental psychical processsymbolic - a conception, however, that goes well beyond its origins.According to Lacan, a [[distinction]] must be drawn between what belongs to the imaginary.The imaginayr was then In [[particular]], the relation between the owrldsubject, on the registerone hand, and the dimension of imagessignifiers, [[speech]], conscious or unconscious[[language]], perceived or imaginned.In this respecton the [[other]], 'imaginary' is not simply frequently contrasted with the oppsoite of 'real': imaginary relation, that between the image certainly belongs to reality ego and Lacan sought in anaimal ehtology facts that brought out formative effects comparable to that described in 'its images.In each [[case]], many problems derive from the mirro stagerelations between these two dimensions.'
THE NOTION OF THE The 'SYMBOLICreal' CAME TO THE FOREFRONT IN THE rOME rEPORT.tHE SYMOLS REFERRED TO HERE ARE NOT ICONSemerges as a [[third]] term, STYLIZED FIGURATIONS, BUT SIGNIFIERS, IN THE SENSE DEVELOPED BY sASSURE AND JAKOBSON, EXTENDED INTO A GENeralized definitionlinked to the symbolic and the imaginary: differential elemntsit stands for what is neither symbolic nor imaginary, in themselves without meaningand remains [[foreclosed]] from the [[analytic]] [[experience]], which acquire value only in their mutual relations, and forming a closed order - the question is whther this order is or is not comletean experience of speech.Henceforth it What is prior to the assumption of the symbolic, not the imaginary, that is seen to be real in its 'raw' [[state]] (in the determining order case of the subject, for [[instance]], the organism and its effects are radical: the subject[[biological]] [[needs]]), in Lacan's sensemay only be supposed, it is himself an effect of the symbolic[[algebraic]] x.Levi-Strauss's formalization The [[Lacanian]] [[concept]] of the elementary structures of kinship and its use of Jakobson's binarism provided the basis for LAcanreal's conception of the symbolic - a conception, however, that goes well beyond its origins.According is not to Lacan, a distinction must be drawn between what belongs to the imaginary.In particularconfused with reality, the relation between which is perfectly knowable: the subjectof [[desire]] [[knows]] now more than that, on the one ahnd, and the signifiers, speehc, language, on the other, since for it reality is frequently contrasted with the imaginary relation, that between the ego and its iamges.In each case, many problems derive from the relations between these two dimensionsentirely phantasmatic.
The term 'real' emerges , which was at first of only minor importance, acting as a third termkind of safety rail, has gradually been developed, and its [[signification]] has been considerably altered.It began, [[naturally]] enough, by presenting, linked in relation to the symbolic substitutions and the imaginaryvariations, a function of constancy: it stands for what 'the real is neither symbolic nor that which always returns to the same [[place]].' It then became that before which the imaginaryfaltered, and remains foreclosed from that over which the anlytic experiencesymbolic stumbles, that which is an experience of speechrefractory, resistant.What is prior to Hence the assumption of [[formula]]: "the symbolic, real is the real in its 'raw' state ([[impossible]]."It is in this sense that the case of the subjectterm begins to appear regularly, for instanceas an adjective, to describe that which is [[lacking]] in the organism and its biological needs)symblic order, may only be supposedthe ineliminable residue of all articulation, it is an algebraic x.The Lacanian concept fo the 'real' is not to be confused with realityforeclosed element, which is perfectly knowablemay be approached but never grasped: the subject umbilical cord of desire knowns now more than that, since for it reality is entirely phantasmaticthe symbolic.
The term 'real'As distinguished by Lacan, which was at first of only minor importancethese three dimensions are, acting as a kind of saety rail, has grdually been developedwe say, and its signification has been considerably alteredprofoundly heterogenoeus.It began, anturally enough, by presenting, in relation to symbolic substitutions and imaginary variations, a function of constancy: 'Yet the real is fact that whcih always returns to the same place.' It then became that before which the imaginary faltred, that over which the symbolic stumbles, that which is refractory, resistant.Hence the formula: "the real is the impossible."It is three terms have been linked together in this sense tha a series raises the term begins question as to appear regularly, as an adjectivewhat they have in common, a question to describe that which is lacking Lacna has addressed himself in his most [[recent]] [[thinking]] on the symblic order, the ineliminable residue of all articulation, the foreclosed element, which may be approache,d but never grasped: the umbilical cord subject of the symbolicBorromean [[knot]].
As distinguished by [[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan, these three dimensions are, as we say, profoundly heterogenoeus. Ye t the fact that the three terms have been linked together in a series raises the question as to what they have in common, a question to which Lacna has addressed himself in his most rcent thinking on the subject of the Borromean knot.]]
