About absolute inadequacy
The unrepresentable , that’s whose presence can not be transmitted on the mode of correspondence between word and thing, as both may be inaccessible for an individual. It would thus preventing the word and the thing to meet, or even exist for each other. Unrepresentable is what evades the word, sometimes even to the image. Thus, such a definition would be radically opposed to the canonical definition of truth proposed by Saint Thomas Aquinas: adequatio intellectus rei, adequacy between the thing and the intellect. What are the consequences of such opposition with this defition of truth?
Let’s see how a “massive psychic trauma” (Dori Laub, 1994) can illustrate this definition of the unrepresentable. It precisely escape conscious memory, and is “encapsulated” so tightly that an individual will access it at the price of a very specific effort. Sometimes it is accessible only because the other who has not lived that massive psychic trauma is in place and psychoanalyst, and is sufficiently documented in the historical context of the patient experience to take a slight lead ( Laub, 2012), and propose a reading that frees the patient from a total denial position. For example, it is the knowledge by a Swedish psychoanalyst that some women who were detained in labor camps claimed they had been treated well by the SS that gave his patient (a former camp inmate) the means to come out of his denial.
Such totally false description, works in complicity with the perpetrator, who has done everything to destroy the individuality of the subject. Presenter unrepresentable then would be to allow the subject to exist as such in front of his experience, helping to find, but perhaps also to re-create a new adequation between the thing and the intellect.