Thursday, June 08, 2006
re: aura, image, celebrity
we mentioned that images are not about unconcious or unconcious or true or false, but rather they are on a level of persuasion that brings out an immediate reaction from you.
we also mentioned- that is the imaginary of the lacanian stages- that unconcious is more close to real, and that the concious isthe symbolic order....
can u confirm that this is a correct link? or am i confused?
thanks
Morane
we also mentioned- that is the imaginary of the lacanian stages- that unconcious is more close to real, and that the concious isthe symbolic order....
can u confirm that this is a correct link? or am i confused?
thanks
Morane
# posted by Anonymous @ 11:29 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Your first sentence is correct except I would have questions about the "rather." May be this is the source of the confusion. I would replace "but rather" with "and also."
You're on the right track. The Symbolic is also not necessarily conscious; for example, we are not aware without training of the grammar of our own language that we speak fluently. Nor is the real to be confused with the unconscious, but the reason for that is beyond the scope of our course.
Still, since the conscious is rational and the unconscious irrational I can see why you would make those connections. And your are right to "imagine the imaginary" as between the rational and the irrational, between conscious and unconscious.
My goal is not that everyone should understand this at the technical level, but rather it is - to put it plainly - that you forget about conscious and unconscious as categories that apply here. The conscious is immediately obvious to reflection; the unconscious has to be dredged out, for example by a psychoanalyst. The level we're talking about (images, myths) is neither immidiately obvious nor elaborately hidden and we can get at it veryf easily without paying a shrink. Barthes has, in other words, made a real discovery here of something that was not known before, but which is crucial to how the hegemony works: neither at the conscious nor the unconscious level, but SOMEHWERE ELSE. In class I tried to speculate that the somewhere else was mostly at the level of images (Lacan's "imaginary," Mitchell's "pictures.")
Post a Comment
You're on the right track. The Symbolic is also not necessarily conscious; for example, we are not aware without training of the grammar of our own language that we speak fluently. Nor is the real to be confused with the unconscious, but the reason for that is beyond the scope of our course.
Still, since the conscious is rational and the unconscious irrational I can see why you would make those connections. And your are right to "imagine the imaginary" as between the rational and the irrational, between conscious and unconscious.
My goal is not that everyone should understand this at the technical level, but rather it is - to put it plainly - that you forget about conscious and unconscious as categories that apply here. The conscious is immediately obvious to reflection; the unconscious has to be dredged out, for example by a psychoanalyst. The level we're talking about (images, myths) is neither immidiately obvious nor elaborately hidden and we can get at it veryf easily without paying a shrink. Barthes has, in other words, made a real discovery here of something that was not known before, but which is crucial to how the hegemony works: neither at the conscious nor the unconscious level, but SOMEHWERE ELSE. In class I tried to speculate that the somewhere else was mostly at the level of images (Lacan's "imaginary," Mitchell's "pictures.")
<< Home
