Please help me analyze Lacan's ontological and epistemological theory of generative structuralism, and try to be as specific as possible. This is my exam, thank you.

Second, it is symbolic domain, or symbolic order. "1953 is an important year in Lacan's ideological history. In July this year, Lacan made a report entitled "Symbol, Imagination and Reality" at the first scientific seminar of the truly established French Psychoanalytic Association, and put forward imagination, symbol and reality for the first time.

) constitutes the three registers of human existence and the three interactive sequences of organizing all human experiences, which indicates that Lacan's thinking on human subjectivity has shifted from the genetic perspective of mirror stage theory to the structural analysis perspective. "[1] The landmark event of this turn is the publication of the role and field of speech and language in psychoanalysis, that is, the report of the Rome conference held by Lacan at the Institute of Psychology of the University of Rome on September 26-27, 1963, referred to as the Rome Report. [2] "If Lacan falsified Freud's concept of' self' with the mirror stage, then here, he mercilessly discredited' superego' and all subjects of human beings. More importantly, the self-established ideological meaning body as a deeper subjectivity is exposed to the alienation and occupation of the unconscious language signifier. The battle of the "Little Other" (A) with mirror image as the medium has now become the battle of the "Capitalized Other" in symbolic language. Is this theme possible? You don't say! Lacan's answer is: never. " [3] What needs to be pointed out here is that Lacan borrowed any academic resources, or subversive transformation, not transplantation, and so did his attitude and thinking about linguistics.

So, what is Lacan's reason for answering "never"?

First of all, Lacan established the logical starting point of his philosophy of language with the help of anthropology and linguistics, that is, "language (idea) is the killing of things and people." [4] pull

Kang said in the Rome Report: "The scientific value of our subject comes from the theoretical concepts refined by Freud in his experience. These concepts have not been fully analyzed, so they still retain the ambiguity of ordinary language. "

Sex, these concepts not only benefit from these implied meanings, but also avoid the danger of misunderstanding. In this case, we think it is too early to break with the traditional terminology. However, in our view, only by establishing these clauses.

Synonymous relations with current anthropological terms and even corresponding relations with the latest problems in philosophy can clarify the meanings of these terms. [5] Lacan believes that the "theoretical concept" created by Freud is "in danger of being misunderstood" because it is "not fully analyzed" and has "fuzziness of language". So, what is the solution? In Lacan's view, the way is to establish a relationship with anthropology and establish a corresponding relationship with the latest problems of philosophy. Zhang Yibing believes that "anthropology" here refers to Levi-Strauss's structural anthropology, while "the latest problem of philosophy" is linguistic structuralism. [6] Structuralist anthropology is just an intermediary of Lacan, or an intermediary leading to structuralist linguistics. "In Levi-Strauss's view, the most critical heterogeneity between humans and animals lies in their different relationships with the real world. Animals are immersed in the process of physical experience, and human beings upgrade the direct perceptual relationship of reality to the symbolic relationship mediated by symbols through language. " [7] Levi Smith

Strauss distinguished human beings from animals through language. On the basis of anthropology, Lacan made a further analysis of people through language, that is, people (false selves) died more tragically in language. Saussure

I have talked about the arbitrariness and variability of language symbols, and even talked about the compulsion and invariance of symbols. He said: "The signifier seems to be free to choose the ideas it expresses. On the contrary, for the language society that uses it,

But it is not free, but compulsory. Language is not discussed with the public, and its chosen signifier cannot be replaced by another. "[8] in

Here Saussure is talking about the relationship between signifier and signified, and only on the symbolic level of language. However, when it comes to signifier and signified, we often ignore an object, namely signified.

Objects, or simply "things". Why ignore it? Because it has been killed by symbols. "Kozhefu once gave an example vividly. When we use the concept of' dog' to identify dogs in reality, the word' already'

I can't run, I can't drink, I can't eat: the meaning (essence) in the text no longer exists-that is, it is dead. [9] Therefore, Zhang Yibing said: "The journey from abstract concepts to the world is precisely the process of killing perceptual beings. But Lacan's philosophy of language has greatly developed this view: language (concept) is the killing of people and things. " [ 10]

Secondly, language gains eternity by killing people and things, and language relies on a symbolic power, or "the essence of language is a symbolic symbol". [1 1] Lacan said: "To make the symbol liberated from practicality become a word liberated from the present and the present (hic et nune), the difference lies not in the texture of the sound, but in its elegant existence, in which the symbol realizes the eternal concept." [12] That is to say, the symbol is not the existence of "presence and place", but its "elegant existence", that is, "nothing", which makes the symbol concept (language) an eternal existence. Therefore, "words can only be established as traces of nothingness, and their bearing will no longer be broken;" With the help of words, concepts keep things that have disappeared and nurture things. "[13] As" self ",in symbolic language, people abandon themselves, or language abandons people and constructs" me ". What needs to be pointed out here is that people who are abandoned by language refer to "mirror self", and this abandonment is also a kind of "antecedent". We have talked about this "antecedent" before. The first time is the "antecedent" of another A in the "mirror stage", and here is the "antecedent" of another A. Lacan said: "The symbolic function is manifested in the dual movement of the subject: people set a goal for his actions, but only give him a basic position at an appropriate time. The scope of the symbol "[14]" can't be regarded as composed of people, but should be regarded as composed of people. " [15] Therefore, Zhang Yibing said: "In Lacan, symbolic symbols constitute people, and capitalized others map and confirm the subject. People's life is constantly supplemented by various false symbols, and almost every moment of the subject's existence will be the first time of a symbol concept. " [ 16]

Again, the first result of the symbolic concept is that "I" is included in the language, thus realizing the existence of the other and throwing "I" into the abyss of "false me". Lacan believes that every' I' is addressed by language (the capitalized other), which symbolizes that people become people. However, once I identify myself with the call of language, the possibility of my true self as existence is further' lost in language'. [17] pull

Kang said: "In the world of discourse, nothing is equal to existence, and everyone here has once again found the gap that constitutes the subject. This theme lacks an introduction to reality ... when the subject occupies this missing position, it is missing.

Introduce words, which is the definition of subject. In order to mark this point, it is necessary for us to define the subject in the cycle of language field, which I call' the other'. [18] In Lacan's view, the essence of subject is a kind of "nothing" and a kind of "lack", which indicates the lack of subject in the place where the other appears.

As mentioned above, we have involved the aggression or violence of the other party and pointed out that the other party is more aggressive and violent than the other party. So, what are the manifestations of the opponent's aggressiveness? Zhang Yibing believes that,

There are two manifestations of the opponent's aggressiveness: one is being named; The second is to be awakened. What is naming? Lacan said: "The subject is the same. If he seems to be a slave to language, he is even more a slave to words. Since he was born.

At first, even in the form of his name, he joined a wide range of discourse activities. "[19] in

According to Lacan, the other forcibly brings the subject into the category of language by means of "name". This compulsion has two meanings: first, it precedes the birth of the body. From this perspective, naming is more important than others.

More arbitrary. The second is indispensability, that is, the subject can't get rid of this naming and exist. If the subject can modify the naming, then no matter how it is modified, the subject can't get rid of the fate of being named. not have

Whether your name is Zhang San, Li Si or Wang Wu, you should always mark it, even if "nameless" is another form of naming and marking. What is awakening? Lacan said: "I am looking for other people's answers in my words. Let me be

The theme is my problem. In order to get recognition from others, I focused on the arrival and telling the dead. In order to get him, I call him by his first name, and in order to answer me, he must accept or reject the name. I

I agree with myself in the language, but this can only be done after I get lost in the language as an object. "[20] In other words, we equate ourselves with repetition and countless answers. Zhang Yibing gave a vivid example. He said: "Wang Er is a boy, Wang Er is very white, and Wang Er is a big man; Wang er is obedient, Wang er loves cleanliness, and Wang er is pleasing; Wang er cong Ming, Wang er studies well, Wang er wins the first place; Wang Er is a college student in a prestigious school, and Wang Er will definitely be a doctor. In Britain;

Wang Er is a sentimental person. Wang er never takes pains. Wang Er is a good father. Wang Er is a person with personality, an official and a successful person. In fact, each of the above positive and instructive generalizations.

Thoughts are constantly passed from one person's mouth to another, naturally forming a mandatory' homework correction', in which each symbol recognition will be a kind of inquiry and guidance to the subject. The man's name is Wang Er,

It is in this relationship that the conscious subject in social existence is constructed. "[2 1]

Therefore, "Lacan's capitalized Other is established among individuals through language and living words, not our other self." "A is a non-ego imposed on me, but I don't know that it is a kind of compulsory violence. I foolishly believe that this is what I should be, and even this false self may be the ideal that the real self has struggled for and is close to. " [22]

Third, real domain, or real order. If the imaginary domain and the symbolic domain discuss the "other" from the front, then the real domain is expounded from the back. Let's first understand what the real domain is, and then answer the question about "the other".

What is a real domain? Because real domain is a concept put forward by Lacan in his later period, it is not as clear as imaginary domain and symbolic domain, so there are great differences in understanding real domain. Gao believes that the real domain is

"Reality" is a variant of the blending of imagination and symbol. He said: "Through the cognitive activities in the mirror stage, the subject has a certain recognition ability and realizes that the image recognized by the subject itself in contact with the outside world is nothingness.

Non-is a kind of deformation of objective objects. Lacan believes that this is an imaginary deformation of the subject. However, this is not the product of the subject's arbitrary imagination, but the subject depends on the object presented to the subject, that is, with the help of

The factors of "reality" itself and the object deformation imagined by the symbolic ability of the subject itself. Lacan put forward three levels of learning about the individual and personality: imagination, symbol and reality.

Go ahead. [23] Zhang Yibing and Yan Zesheng believe that the real domain cannot be equated with "reality". Zhang Yibing said: "According to Lacan's philosophical logic and specific context, the most appropriate translation of the word Reel into Chinese is' truth'. Some theorists translate it into' reality', which easily leads people to material realism or irrelevant things in traditional philosophy. There are also a few theorists who mistake' truth' for' reality'. This just reverses Lacan's meaning, and' real' is only surreal. " [24] Yan Zesheng also said: "Lacan's" (real) concept is strictly different from the "(realistic) concept of experience, which is an ontological concept. "Reality" is the result of the interaction between imagination domain and symbol domain, while reality is surreal, that is, it is not only opposite to imagination, but also outside the symbol. " [25]

So, which view is closer to Lacan's original intention for the understanding of real domain? How to treat it? Combining the previous discussion with Lacan's context, I agree with the latter, that is, the real domain is not the reality in experience, but a kind of "truth" in philosophy. Because Chu Xiaoquan, the Chinese translator of Lacan Anthology, did not distinguish between truth and reality.

But treat them equally and turn them into "reality", which we can see through comparison. In the Chinese translation of Selected Works of Lacan, Chu Xiaoquan translated it like this: "This joke is not aimless, because

Because it is to do the basic level analysis that has never been done in psychoanalysis, we use the following nouns to set the foundation of these levels: symbolic, imaginary and realistic. In the experience of analysis, reality is often hidden.

Behind the opposite form, it is not difficult to determine the reality. For example, it often appears in actions that we are used to thinking of as active intervention, but it would be a mistake to take it as its boundary. because

Obviously, on the other hand, the analyst's self-control and his refusal to answer are also an element of reality in the analysis. More precisely, this kind of negativity is pure negativity, because there is no specific motivation.

Sex, in this negative sex, has the connection between symbol and reality.