This may be a banal question for those who know the history of psychoanalysis well, but it would seem to me a helpful, if simple, pedagogical approach to testing out different figures is which Freud they read (duh–the point is coming). On the one hand, you have the Freudians of the Ich ohne Sinn, that is the Id as postulated as senseless, and therefore timeless, spaceless, etc. In short, you have the precursors to Kristeva’s semiotic. Then, on the other hand, there’s Zizek and Lacan, in which case, the unconscious is not without its superego, and therefore with an ordered structure. The reason I raise this is trying to answer students questions on how we move from a Freud who seems to ascribe such anarchy to the Id and then we get an approach in Zizek, for example, in which every pathology (and non-pathology for that matter) operates according to a certain logic. In other words: the point is to work out just how that logic operates (double displacement, not single displacement) and locate it within a given “reality” (not Real). This gives rise, it seems to me, to two different pop psychology reactions one sees, for example, in reaction to the shootings in Texas yesterday (this is, though, for sake of simplicity, not that this would ever carry water as any real psychoanalytic reading): the act was senseless and attempts to rationalize it in some way obfuscates the truly otherness of each singular psychobiography and the void at its heart. On the other hand, one sees another reaction looking to place the shooter’s displacements of certain fantasies within a given logic (again, oversimplifying to the extreme) that is in the end explainable. And thus, we could simply say that there are the Enlightenment and postmodernist branches of psychoanalysis in a thumb-nail way.