gobbledegook.
The real in Lacan refers to the state of nature from which we have been forever severed by our entrance into language. Prior to this the baby makes no distinction between itself and the objects that satisfy its needs. So it exists in the realm of the Real, which is a psychic place (not a physical place), where there is this original unity between baby and nature. In this psychic place there is no absence or loss or lack since the Real is all fullness and completeness.

Is that so difficult to understand?

What we have here is the rejection of the psychoanalytic conception of the split subject (Freud's division between the unconscious and the consciousness or between the id and ego). This account challenges or questions the humanist category of a stable subject with free will and self-determination. Hence the humanist recoil from Freud's category of the unconscious as a chaotic realm of constantly shifting drives and desires.

Do we not live with this unconscious in our daily lives in our personal relationships?

What Lacan does is rework this account in terms of a linguistic discourse about the nature of signification and value within synchronic systems of signs, with its distinction between "la langue" versus "la parole," and its concern with on the concept of the linguistic sign itself. The argument is that the unconscious, which governs all factors of human existence, is structured like a language.

Is that difficult to understand? If we accept that, then Lacan reworks Freud's picture of the unconscious as a chaotic realm of constantly shifting drives and desires so that it becomes a continually circulating chain (or multiple chains) of signifiers, with no anchor--or, to use Derrida's terms, no center. The elements in the unconscious--our wishes, desires, images--all form signifiers (they're usually expressed in verbal terms), with these signifiers forming a "signifying chain".

For Lacan, there are no signifieds; there is nothing that a signifier ultimately refers to. If there were, then the meaning of any particular signifier in the unconscious would be relatively stable--and there would be (in Saussure's terms) a relation of signification between signifier and signified, with that relation creating soem stable some kind of meaning. Lacan says those relations of signification don't exist (in the unconscious, at least).

That makes sense of the way our dreams and fantasies work, does it not?