[Gem]

I reckon it can be defined using three aspects of 'the real', 'the symbolic' and 'the imaginary'. This is the framework which Lacan used, but to put it simply, the 'real' can be thought of as a pure potential which has no defining quality as such, but represents a fundamental ground that all else has to adhere to.


The 'symbolic' is more or less true, but completely arbitrary, so if we say one direction is up, then the opposite direction must be down; to say a thing is 'good' must be represented by that which is 'bad' and so on. So the symbolic is definitively true, but arbitrarily so.


The 'imaginary' is when we imagine that there is 'all good' without 'bad'. It is thus removed from the real, and thus defined as 'imaginary'. Like imagining all up without a down is inherently senseless.


It's more complex because these all overlap. For example we can arbitrarily say what is up, so to one on the south pole 'up' is the opposite direction than it is on the North pole. Hence, 'up' is imagined arbitrarily, but is true, or real, because of the opposed down. The symbolic is dualistic but it is not 'two different things'. It only represents the extremes of the same thing, and in that regard it is connected to the 'real'.