The lacanian Babel
As we know, human thought constantly tends towards totality; from here to totalitarianism there is only one step.
Sigmund Freud looked for the solution of a certain strictly formal preservation of his discourse in the publishing house he had created for this purpose, in the expectation that one day some reader might redeem it in its true saying. He found it, years later, in Jacques Lacan.
The latter, more daring, or maybe more aware, invented the passe.
Before the common language of academic transmission, he bet on the singular languages, one by one, of each analysis. It is not a defensive response, as we can see, it is a decisive, risky bet, aiming at the structure itself.
If we take the example of Babel, we can see God’s wit. He does not prevent the construction of the Tower, he simply decompletes the common language and it seems with good results. Similar wit to the one Lacan shows us: one does not attack the hierarchy, one only decompletes it with the gradus.
If anything can hinder the common language, it will only be the singularity of each of the languages that the passe will allow even to be heard in the end.
This was the bet.
It was not very well received, the Note to the Italian group explains this perfectly.
The following dissolution of the École freudienne de París also confirms this.
Later, the hopeless adoption of the École de la Cause freudienne corroborates it.
The Freudian invention, in the expectation of a redemption that seemed impossible, has favoured the appearance of a reader who was able to collect his legacy.
The Lacanian invention doesn’t have the same aim, it does not wait for a reader, it rather promotes a multiplicity of languages, the specific stuttering of each of them, their dispersion throughout the world, like an authentic Babel, waiting for the new, an authentic collective work of transmission.