"One may wonder why it should be the case that the subject only attains ‘full’ subjectivity by means of the ‘universal’ aspect of language – wouldn’t that clash with his contention, that the mirror stage, which lays the basis for the subject eventually acquiring language, teaches one to oppose any universalistic philosophy based on the Cogito, that is, any philosophy which claims unity and transparency for the subject? The reason is to be sought in the signifying function oflanguage or the symbolic order which enables the subject to be a subject, that is, to surpass the muteness and inertia of what Lacan terms the ‘real’ – for instance the body in its pure (‘unintelligible’, ‘unsymbolizable’) organic state"
"Quite simply, the real remains what is, an unspeakable is, an impossible, inexpressible, ineffable and undifferentiated space outside lan- guage. The real, then, lies beyond systems of signification; it exists outside Lacan's symbolic order. It is defined as that which cannot be defined, that which is alien to or resists signification, that which exceeds symbolization" I found this in secondary literature talking about Lacan's conception of the real, Im I missing something?