{"id":10478,"date":"2013-02-22T16:47:48","date_gmt":"2013-02-22T21:47:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=10478"},"modified":"2013-02-22T17:46:49","modified_gmt":"2013-02-22T22:46:49","slug":"eyers-real-symbolic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2013\/02\/22\/eyers-real-symbolic\/","title":{"rendered":"eyers Real Symbolic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eyers, Tom. Lacan the Concept of the ‘Real’<\/em> New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.<\/p>\n

A successful navigation of the Oedipal imbroglio<\/strong>, then, only allows the emphasis of the Symbolic to fall upon the negatively constituted movements of the signifier in relation<\/span>. But as the title of a section of the seminar on psychoses<\/span> states, \u2018the signifier, as such, signifies nothing\u2019, which is to say \u00a0that in isolation and at its most material<\/span>, which according to this logic points to its lack of relation, its lack of reliance on another signifier<\/strong>, the signifier stops up, rather than facilitates, meaning. […]<\/p>\n

This is the signifier as isolated<\/span> underpinning the movements of sense as its material ground. … Those signifiers that, in their isolation, actively signify the nothing, do so insistently within psychotic subjectivity, whereby the lack of a paternal signifier <\/span>(essentially a \u2018third term\u2019 that dissolves the dyadic logic of the Imaginary) exposes signification to isolation and the failure of relation. Each psychotic signifier, then, is only countable as one; it cannot be taken as containing the potential for a total set of meanings, a logic that Lacan will later expand through his account of non- phallic, or \u2018feminine\u2019, sexuality. 43<\/p>\n

that aspect of the signifier which cleaves most closely to the Imaginary, those isolated signifiers that route the most elementary forms of egoic identification, persist throughout to the degree that all signifiers, by their \u2018nature\u2019, have the potential to uncouple from relations of meaning and exist in isolation. 44<\/p>\n

For the psychotic, it is the potential of the signifier to refer to something other than itself that is lost<\/strong>, namely the signifier in its relational aspect; and Lacan usefully compares this loss with the loss of the fundamental human ability to deceive, for signification to say more than it might mean: \u2018you are in the presence of a subject insofar as what he says and does \u2013 they\u2019re the same thing \u2013 can be supposed to have been said and done to deceive you\u2019. …<\/p>\n

Lacan\u2019s comment highlights the multidimensional quality of relational signification, whereby the paradigmatic act of communication is to tell a lie by literally telling the truth;<\/span> to lose this capacity is to reveal the materiality of the isolated signifier in its brute insistence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What must be more firmly established … however, is the more general claim that the Symbolic <\/span> as such, for all subjects, contains<\/strong> Real<\/span> elements that point to the constant potential for meaning to dissolve, even as the very same elements form the essential foundation that allows the very horizon of the<\/span> Symbolic <\/span> to cohere<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

… the Real<\/span> simultaneously supports and threatens the<\/span> Symbolic <\/span>from within.<\/span> 45<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eyers, Tom. Lacan the Concept of the ‘Real’ New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. A successful navigation of the Oedipal imbroglio, then, only allows the emphasis of the Symbolic to fall upon the negatively constituted movements of the signifier in relation. But as the title of a section of the seminar on psychoses states, \u2018the signifier, … Continue reading “eyers Real Symbolic”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112,118,41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-foreclosure","category-symbolic","category-the-real"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10478","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10478"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10478\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10481,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10478\/revisions\/10481"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}