What do we think about Lacan's "The Real"?

[Staples]

Leo recently posted on his blog a video detailing Lacan's concept of The Real.

I thought overall it was quite a good analysis. I liked that it recognized some sort of fundamental bedrock, black hole, singularity within consciousness that cannot be undermined or shared. First order truth? Great, I can get behind that. That should be graspable to the people on this forum. 

But the conclusions and framing that come from that are just so damn depressing. I haven't read Lacan so maybe this is PlasticPill's influence, but it struck me as an extremely human-centric, and negative view on existence. And the music... so melodramatic .

"Most of what we do as subjects is to try to avoid the recurrence of that original trauma that was forced on us when becoming subjects. We lost something that we never had, significance. The Real is incurable, it's there because you're a subject."

He's framing the real like an incurable disease, something to be victim to.

This perspective seems to me to be the response one feels as a human when you have developed sufficient self-awareness but not the psychological development required to handle it. Lacan read the Necronomicon before he was ready.

Do you remember being a child? The Real suggests you must be traumatized from birth with this self-awareness, but in my experience this must be impossible. In my life, I started off with zero self-awareness, and it very slowly developed until I hit my late teens. Memory formation didn't even properly begin until I was four or five years old. How could I be traumatized by self-awareness in such a state? I was eating cake off the floor at that age, I couldn't give a fuck. 

So, I can't accept the trauma of the real as some sort of fundamental aspect of being.

What do you think?

Edited September 11 by Staples

[Breakingthewall]

The thing cannot be simpler, what is real is existence, what is apparent is the appearance of existence. If you take a step back you realize that all appearances are existence, they are the same, exactly, with different appearances. If you merge with appearance, every thing is different, because there are infinite possible appearances, but they all have the same substance, existence. then, you give up appearance and recognize yourself as existence, you have broken your limits, because they were apparent, then you see through the appearance, so through the limits, and perceive yourself as unlimited, as you always were. It's not something like, ohhhh so deep, it's simply the reality. Be lost in the apparent vs don't be lost in the apparent 

Edited September 11 by Breakingthewall

[_Archangel_]

Man... i haven't watched that video yet but i sumbled upon his "Mirror Stage" concept and is profound.
Conceptualizing yourself as an image in the mirror creates a split:  You and the the You in the mirror.
This creates a void in the Subject (the one looking): desire. And to desire makes you incomplete, in a  state of perennial anxiety, always trying to fill that void with objects.
The point is: desire is a part of YOU you think you're in lack of, it is that original version of You you saw in the mirror

In other words, we start to desire to be ourselves, but it is just an illusion produced by the identification in an object (the mirror's reflection) that by definition we cannot be.

[PurpleTree]

i don’t know and can’t help you unfortunately 

all I know is i have a book about lacan by zizek but never read it 

[Leo Gura]

Keep in mind that Lacan was a psycho-analyst which means he's dealing with dysfunctional and truamatized psyches. That's sorta his bias.

I am reading a book about a 15 year old girl who was kidnapped, imprisoned in a sex dungeon, and raped for 7 years. Now that's an encounter with The Real which no one here can fathom.

Imagine integrating that.

Lacan is showing you that you live in a comfortable little bubble of consciousness, ignorant to what lies beyond. Your Ekhart Tolle spirituality is not gonna save you when things get serious.

Edited September 11 by Leo Gura

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gurawhat's the title of this book your referring to? Thank you Leo in advance, your an incredibly exceptional human being and you inspire me to fulfill my potential 

Edited September 11 by ExploringReality

[mmKay]

This is not from the book, but a similar scenario. Absolutely gut-wrenching story

Edited September 11 by mmKay

[Staples]

7 hours ago, _Archangel_ said:

The point is: desire is a part of YOU you think you're in lack of, it is that original version of You you saw in the mirror

In other words, we start to desire to be ourselves, but it is just an illusion produced by the identification in an object (the mirror's reflection) that by definition we cannot be.

I agree that desire and needs-meeting are core elements of human existence, but I don't think suffering is then implied by that experience. Having needs as a subject is not suffering, failing to meet them is. I see this reading as the depressive attitude of Buddhists and Lacan.

Who says your needs are reasonable? Which of your human needs and wants are fantasies versus actual survival needs? People cause themselves a lot of suffering by constructing unnecessary needs that are impossible for them to meet.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Keep in mind that Lacan was a psycho-analyst which means he's dealing with dysfunctional and truamatized psyches. That's sorta his bias.

I am reading a book about a 15 year old girl who was kidnapped, imprisoned in a sex dungeon, and raped for 7 years. Now that's an encounter with The Real which no one here can fathom.

Imagine integrating that.

Lacan is showing you that you live in a comfortable little bubble of consciousness, ignorant to what lies beyond. Your Ekhart Tolle spirituality is not gonna save you when things get serious.

Yes true, that makes sense given Lacan is biased by his psychoanalytic perspective.

I don't know if a human can integrate that trauma. Having your core needs and state so violated destroys the foundation of human life. I don't expect a positive mindset to save me from such an encounter.

My concern with Lacan is that he reads The Real as a potential for violation at the root of consciousness, which is not the case in my experience. There can only be violations against particular forms of consciousness, so it's not a default like he suggests. It seems to me it can only come later as a result of circumstance that directly attacks the core needs of a subject.

I worry that people will construct this root violation perspective and torture themselves with it unnecessarily.

Edited September 12 by Staples

[Keryo Koffa]

Let Zizek synergize Lacan & Hegel via Marx, to get something more wholesome 🥰

[_Archangel_]

@Staples

14 hours ago, Staples said:

Having needs as a subject is not suffering, failing to meet them is.

I would say Lacanianism and Buddhism are more akin to this decription than the other way around.

From what i understand, the Mirror Stage is just the beginning of Desire, but desires are not bad per se.
That's the same in Buddhism, the problem isn't Desire but the over-importance we put in the objects of those desires.
Lacan says that the problem is the shattering of expecation that resulting  from the realization that the attainment of the Object of Desire doesn't make Us whole.

He say that desires are great as fules for our engine,if we accept their objectification as never fulfilling. 
That's when Desire becomes Drive. We can never be whole by reaching a destination, but we can be fullfilled by the enjoying the road to get there, as explained in this video:

----------------
i'm yet to watch the explaination of The Real, so more on that later.

Edited September 12 by _Archangel_

[Staples]

8 hours ago, _Archangel_ said:

@Staples

I would say Lacanianism and Buddhism are more akin to this decription than the other way around.

I am not so sure. I could point to quotes from both of these schools of thought that link desire directly to suffering.

But it seems we agree on principle which is nice, and just discussing interpretations now. 

Mirror stage is not the beginning of desire though. Plenty of animals lack self-awareness and desire to eat and fuck.

It's probably closer to when a subject begins to construct some ideal self which they are not. Which leaves them vulnerable to disappointment when reality is otherwise.

Edited September 13 by Staples

[_Archangel_]

@Staples

11 hours ago, Staples said:

I am not so sure. I could point to quotes from both of these schools of thought that link desire directly to suffering.

Desire is surely linked to suffering, but that doesn't mean it is the cause.
Buddhism has a vast literature so i belive You, but no reasonable buddhist will ever demonize Desire, because they would know it's serves a purpose and is there for a reason, as Lacan claims. Buddhism is not anti-disire, this is a misconception.
Arhats have supposedely extinguished Suffering and they still have needs, goals, plans adn so on.
So this suggest that attachment/identification to/with Desire is the source of Suffering

And Lacan theory of Desire is surprisingly similiar. 
We should use Desire but cutting it's head, the expectation that the end goal will make us happy. Happines is found on the road.
it is found in motion because there isn't a truly stable Self to begin with.
 

11 hours ago, Staples said:

Mirror stage is not the beginning of desire though. Plenty of animals lack self-awareness and desire to eat and fuck.

It's probably closer to when a subject begins to construct some ideal self which they are not. Which leaves them vulnerable to disappointment when reality is otherwise.

I would categorize eating and fucking a raw survival needs. Unconscious. They can certainly be seen as a from of primal Desire though.
So The mirror stage could be the starting point of more sophisticated forms of Desire, those that involve our newly formed Identity.
 

[LoseYourvelf]

I like how the real is what is left after, not some basis

[Staples]

The Real is a Real pain in my ass.

[Nilsi]

On 11.9.2024 at 8:53 PM, PurpleTree said:

all I know is i have a book about lacan by zizek but never read it 

Read it, it’s a good one.