Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What does it mean to Imagine the Real? I've typically seen it as an alternative for the Nuclearism K, I know that it follows Lacan's psychoanalytic theories but I don't quite get what it means. If you could either or explain or direct me to a place that would explain it I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked for the particular K you were talking about; found it and I also found the alt evidence; it's pretty self explanatory:

 

Our alternative is to imagine the real.  Visualizing nuclear destruction through images and political resistance refuses the spectacular presentation of nuclear weapons in the 1AC - this must be the basis for any opposition to nuclear war.

Gusterson '04 Hugh Gusterson, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Science and Technology Studies at MIT, "Nuclear Tourism," Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2004

 

The humanistic psychologist Robert Jay Lifton has argued that one of our most important and difficult tasks in the nuclear age is to “imagine the real(1982). By this he means that, although we live in a situation where nuclear Footnote 4 continued As West and East In all flatt maps—and I am one—are one, So death doth touch the Resurrection.” Rhodes suggests, following through the theme of resurrection, that Oppenheimer saw the bomb as a “weapon of death that might also end war and redeem mankind” (Rhodes 1988, pp. 571–72). NUCLEAR TOURISM 29 weapons could kill millions of people and destroy civilization as we know it at any moment, it is hard to visualize in a meaningful way the scale of a nuclear holocaust or even the destructive power of a single nuclear weapon. Since nuclear weapons are rarely seen, except by those who take care of them, and the government often refuses even to confirm where they are stored, it is easy to forget that the weapons exist at all. It is in order to break through this membrane of denial and help us all to “imagine the real” that antinuclear activists have wanted to display photographs of Hiroshima, spill blood at the Trinity site, and carry banners condemning the unseen but quite real testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. Although many nuclear tourists do not at all share the anti-nuclear activists’ politics, they too are impelled by an urge to “imagine the real.” How else to explain the need to walk through Oppenheimer’s house, to see and touch a full-size replica of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and to stand in the crater created by the world’s first nuclear explosion? The thousands of nuclear tourists, some who came from thousands of miles away, felt the need to drive into the middle of the desert at dawn, despite the almost complete lack of anything to see there, in order to make the nuclear age real each in their own way. Once there, they prayed, hummed, protested, instructed their children, wandered back and forth, or just stared blankly. And, despite the banner on the perimeter of the Trinity site, “More than just a photo op,” almost everyone took photographs—our era’s favourite way to make experience real.

 

There's nothing Lacanian about this 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, here is my best explanation 

 

Lacan specifically talks about how language itself, divides us all from the moment we associate it with desire. He goes on to describe that we are thrown into the world as the people that we are and that we were never developed into the beings that we think we evolve into today. Lacan's real can't just be explained in a way that is just simple and split, a more in depth explanation of desire and want needs to be established first to whomever you are debating. 

 

First lacan describes how desire is attached to language itself. First when a baby cries, we really do not know why the baby is crying, it doesn't know how to talk nor does it know how to communicate with anyone. So normally, we would play with the baby or do something like for example give the baby food. If and whenever the baby stops crying it learns that whatever its problem was, that it has now become associated with the object of food. For all we know, the baby could've wanted anything else but food became its answer to that problem, and now it just associates whatever that wanting with food, which we can conclude to be completely incorrect. 

 

Then, lacan goes to the wanting stage, this is the part when the child or baby can actually voice his opinion to want something. The best example(sticking to the food) would be when the child exclaims his wanting for candy at a candy store. This is very interesting because this is not even what we might be thinking as a response to hunger but moreover it is the response to a problem that we haven't even been able to interpret yet. The wanting competently falsifies the actual problem by masking it to the first answer to its problem (if that makes any sense). 

 

Lastly there is desire, where the child has a desire for things. This can be equally represented into today's world as we lead to the objet petit a and joussance and how they can never be obtained.

 

It all ties into language in the fact that language is a fantasy in which we notice the world that inevitable hides the realities of the real. a world in which we cannot see of feel. The real is described by Lacan as an area in which it is just evil and everything is basically just terrible. Everything is bad and almost all forms of communication as well as emotion, or any subject built upon language is lost. So i guess in your case, it is said that it is impossible to imagine the real, mainly because of its inaccessibility and also its inaccurate descriptions. But to the best extent, the lacanian real would be a desolate area that is full of horrors and ect.

 

Hope this Helped!

 

disclaimer- this is all remembered from a lecture during camp - so its probably not top notch knowlege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, here is my best explanation 

 

Lacan specifically talks about how language itself, divides us all from the moment we associate it with desire. He goes on to describe that we are thrown into the world as the people that we are and that we were never developed into the beings that we think we evolve into today. Lacan's real can't just be explained in a way that is just simple and split, a more in depth explanation of desire and want needs to be established first to whomever you are debating. 

 

First lacan describes how desire is attached to language itself. First when a baby cries, we really do not know why the baby is crying, it doesn't know how to talk nor does it know how to communicate with anyone. So normally, we would play with the baby or do something like for example give the baby food. If and whenever the baby stops crying it learns that whatever its problem was, that it has now become associated with the object of food. For all we know, the baby could've wanted anything else but food became its answer to that problem, and now it just associates whatever that wanting with food, which we can conclude to be completely incorrect. 

 

Then, lacan goes to the wanting stage, this is the part when the child or baby can actually voice his opinion to want something. The best example(sticking to the food) would be when the child exclaims his wanting for candy at a candy store. This is very interesting because this is not even what we might be thinking as a response to hunger but moreover it is the response to a problem that we haven't even been able to interpret yet. The wanting competently falsifies the actual problem by masking it to the first answer to its problem (if that makes any sense). 

 

Lastly there is desire, where the child has a desire for things. This can be equally represented into today's world as we lead to the objet petit a and joussance and how they can never be obtained.

 

It all ties into language in the fact that language is a fantasy in which we notice the world that inevitable hides the realities of the real. a world in which we cannot see of feel. The real is described by Lacan as an area in which it is just evil and everything is basically just terrible. Everything is bad and almost all forms of communication as well as emotion, or any subject built upon language is lost. So i guess in your case, it is said that it is impossible to imagine the real, mainly because of its inaccessibility and also its inaccurate descriptions. But to the best extent, the lacanian real would be a desolate area that is full of horrors and ect.

 

Hope this Helped!

 

disclaimer- this is all remembered from a lecture during camp - so its probably not top notch knowlege

 

It's not a question of Lacan, but a question of the argument in terms of the Nuclearism K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of Lacan, but a question of the argument in terms of the Nuclearism K.

Yea his question is about the general imagining of the real, but he does mention that he has seen it in nuclearism K. 

 

What does it mean to Imagine the Real? I've typically seen it as an alternative for the Nuclearism K, I know that it follows Lacan's psychoanalytic theories but I don't quite get what it means. If you could either or explain or direct me to a place that would explain it I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...