that language supports, as of average discussion, with all the progress of thought, what do I say?of the critique, into the bargain.I must "anticipate" myself (taking up again the sense of the word from me and for me) onwhat I count on introducing in the written form of
, l, apostrophe, a, c, h,etc. to make felt in what effect linguistics takes position.This will not be a progress: a regression, rather. This is what we have need of against theunity of obscurantism that already fuses itself for the ends of fending off
No one seems to recognize around what unity is made, and that in the times whensomeone gathered the "signature of things, " at least one could not count on a stupidity enoughcultivated for one to hook language to the function of communication for it.The recourse to communication protects, dare I say, the rear of what outmodeslinguistics, in covering over the ridicule that re-applies
on its basis. Let us suppose itshows in the occultation of language the figure of the myth that is telepathy.
Freud himself lets himself be taken by this lost child of thought: that it communicates itself without speech. Hedoes not unmask there the secret king of the court of miracles of which he begins the scouring.Such that linguistics remains stuck to the thought that it (thought) is communicated throughspeech. This is the same miracle invoked to make it so that one telapathizes from the same woodfrom which one makes a pact: why not the "dialogue" with which we force-feed the falseoffspring, indeed the social contracts they await from it? Affect is there the right foot, the righteye, to seal these effusions.Every man (
) (who does not know what this is?) is mortal (let us gathertogether over this equality communicable between alls [
]). And now let us speak of "all,"let us speak together, it is the case to say, passing the conjurers ball of what is under the nose(
) of syllogists (not of Aristotle, let us note) who with a single heart (since him) indeed wishthat the minor premise put Socrates in the mix. For there would emerge from it also that death isadministered like the rest, and by and for men, but without their being on the same side for whatthere is of the telepathy borne by a telegraphy, which the subject from then on does not cease totrouble.That this subject is from the origin marked by a division, is what linguistics takes itsstrength from beyond banterings of communication.Yes, the strength to put the poet in his sack. For the poet is produced from being . . . (if one permit me to translate one who demonstrates it, my friend Jakobson in this particular case). . . is produced from being eaten by worms (
), which find their arrangement amongstthemselves without worrying, it is manifest, whether the poet knows it or not. Whence theconsistency for Plato of the ostracism with which he strikes the poet in his
, and thelively curiosity he shows in the
for those little animals that appear to him to be words inonly doing so on their heads.One sees how precious formalism was in sustaining the first steps of linguistics.But it was all the same from the stumblings in the steps of language, of speech in otherwords, that it had been "anticipated."That the subject is not the one who knows what he says, when well and good somethingis said by the word that fails him (
qui lui manque
), but also in the blunder (
) of a conducthe believes his own, this does not render it
easy to lodge him in the brain by which he seemshelped above all when it sleeps (a point that current neurophysiology does not deny), thereobviously is the order of facts Freud calls the unconscious.