An imagined subject is a fragmented subject which comes with an illusion of wholeness, whereas, the subject that expresses itself exists in a symbolic order. The two subjects do not
overlap, they invade each other’s spheres of operation, they tend to include one another by transforming, or they tend to neglect each other, so they make it impossible to talk about a monolithic subject which resists the fragmentation caused by
dualities. The illusion of wholeness seen in the subject is in fact the fragmented status of subject-immaterial and the symbolic.

The Real finds its imperative correspondent in the relationship between subject-immaterial and the symbolic.

The symbolic order fragments the subject by trying to confine the subject’s imaginational identifications and the undefined blurriness of the Real which can only be seen from the corner of an eye, to a closed system of categories and binary opposites.

Furthermore, the imaginary order connotes identifications imagined by a not yet existent corporal wholeness on a surface that functions by reflecting or on a corporal equivalent of that surface.

As Lacan expressed it, “the Real is a hard nucleus that cannot be contained by the symbolic.”

The Real outside the symbolic is realized in the phenomenon we call nature, through its indefinable existence in the uterus.

Although we control natural truths and carry them to the sphere of the symbolic, the real always returns to its origin.

There will always be a surplus, a residue that philosophy and human sciences cannot explain, and the Real is this very
surplus: the Real is the impossible.