two commonplaces?

There are no historical problems, only historiographical ones.

Or so I have come to believe.

Also, I’d like to record the passing thought that, given the sections of Lacan’s Seminaire XX on feminine sexuality that i’ve just listened to read out loud on a car trip, my vision of Lacan is significantly altered. Perhaps very tritely, I would now compare the text of his seminars (such tiny amount of it as i’ve heard) rather to the Recherche than to the great philosophical systematizers, or even to post-structuralist ‘philosophy’ like Derrida. It isn’t that he’s not philosophical, it’s only that when you add the deepest possible subjectivism (the only possible way to move past it, of course, is all the way into and through it) an equally abiding concern for language, and an extremely, to say the least, idiosyncratic personality, what you get is closer to pseudo-philosophical literature than anything else. It’s about character, texture, and reader-experience. This isn't to deny Lacan philosophical content, but rather to try to give content to the vague idea that he is genuinely post-philosophical.