The symbolic language common to all cultures seems to stem from some ancient language, phylogenetically differentiated by various idioms. “One gets the impression that we are confronted with some ancient but lost way of expression,” [1] as if a residue of the collective past is preserved, as if the experience of the first traumas is being transmitted, and their historical records are localized in a language that requires interpretation and “clairvoyance.” Where and how is this “language”, this memory, stored? This question, although from a different angle, was asked by S. Freud in his work “Totem and Taboo”, where it was mainly about how “prohibitions are transmitted”, and will be asked by him until the end of his days, in particular, he again poses it in his work “The Man Moses and the Monotheistic Religion.” The last answer is well known. It is biological, “Lamarckian” in nature.[2] This answer is repeated both in the work “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” and in the work “I and It” with reference to A. Weisman, on the division of cells into somatic and reproductive cells. Molecular biology developed by A. Weisman determines living things capable of sexual relations a being through two types of memory - phylogenetic, germinal, species and epigenetic, somatic, nervous. Acquired traits are not inherited, since there is no direct connection between these two types of memory. In other words, a dying animal takes away everything “acquired” with it, leaving nothing for its species. Everything that It “acquired” during life is not passed on to descendants. However, with the emergence of a species for which “organic projection” becomes vital (under the sign of which all selection pressure is carried out), it can no longer be said that the epigenetic memory of the individual disappears . It is impossible, since a third memory appears: epiphylogenetic. If you pay attention to the last pages of the work “Totem and Taboo”, you can find there S. Freud talking about what exactly leads to epiphylogenesis: If the mental processes of one generation would not find its continuation in another, if each generation were to reacquire its orientation towards life [a page earlier he writes: “we are based on the assumption of the mass psyche, in which the same mental processes take place as in the life of an individual”], then in there would be no progress and almost no development in this area. Now two new questions arise: how far can we trust mental continuity within the ranks of generations and what means and ways does each generation use to transmit its mental state to the next. [3] S. Freud’s answer is Lamarckism, and this Lamarckism leads to the analysis in “ Beyond the pleasure principle”, “Mass psychology and the analysis of the human self”, “I and It”, where there is constant talk about the “individual soul” and the “mass soul”, and it is necessary to reconsider what is meant by “epiphylogenetic”. This answer is primarily connected with the famous question of repetition and “drives,” which forces S. Freud to turn to biology. Repetition indicates, on the other side of the pleasure principle, that It replaces drive, that “all drives manifest themselves in the tendency to reproduce what already existed before,” and S. Freud explains this phenomenon by the phylogenetic recapitulation of species, turning here to A. Weismann, t . That is, not without reason for what will become an anti-Lamarckian division of memory into species and nervous, in order to draw an analogy between the life drives and the death drives, on the one hand, and soma and germ plasm, on the other.[4] However, if we adhere to the point of view that the third memory appears at the moment of prosthetic projection, which changes the evolutionary relationship between the germ plasm and the soma, then Freudian analysis calls this prosthetic moment neither alive nor dead, which makes it possible to understand epiphylogenetic recapitulation and avoids talking about as, for example, in “Mass Psychology and the Analysis of the Human Self,” about“the unconscious heritage of the race.” The main meaning of this work is found in the place where we are talking about overcoming the opposition of individual and collective psychology in connection with the first murder: if “from any human crowd a primitive horde can arise again,” then this happens because “ in each individual individual the primitive man was actually preserved.”[5] Just like Halbwachs, “each individual person is an integral part of many masses, he is connected on different sides by identification <…> an individual person is a participant in many mass souls,” [6] both hypnosis and mass formation “are hereditary deposits of the phylogenesis of human libido.” [7] Freudian theory poses its main question, the question of inheritance. “Everything that biology and the destinies of the human race have created in the id and fixed in it, all this is accepted into the ego in the form of the formation of an ideal and is again individually experienced by it.”[8] However, if we try to avoid biologism, we must say that the complexity of Oedipus presupposes epiphylogenetic complexity.3. Freud, of course, does not ignore the fact that biological explanations create additional problems: The simplest consideration tells us that the id is not able to experience or experience external fate except through the ego, which for it replaces the external world. However, it is still impossible to talk about direct heredity in the Self. Here the gap between the real individual and the concept of the genus is revealed. This is how the problem of the difference between heritage and inherited arises. However, this problem has not been posed. It is abandoned: It is also impossible to understand the difference between the I and the It too crudely; we must not forget that the I is a special differentiated part of the It. The experiences of the ego at first seem to disappear for heredity; if they have sufficient strength and are often repeated in many individuals successive in the order of the genus, then they turn, so to speak, into experiences of the It, the impressions of which are retained with the help of heredity. "[9] The issue remains unaddressed in the work "The Man Moses and monotheistic religion,” and returns through symbolic language, which cannot be taught. Z. Freud describes a similar need, speaking of “the connections between ideas established during the historical development of language and the need to reproduce them every time an individual learns language.”[10]Z. Freud oscillates between inheritance and inheritance, without which it is impossible to talk not only about drives, but also about content elements: When we study reactions to early traumas, we can often be surprised to discover that they do not strictly correspond to their real experience, but distance themselves from the latter in a way that is much better suited to the phylogenetic phenomenon and can almost always be explained by the influence of the latter, the archaic heritage of man covers not only inclinations, but also substantive elements, traces of memories of events with previous generations.[11] Yet S. Freud cannot carry out this difference. It is at this point that he speaks of a certain “audacity” that is necessary when studying peoples in the same way as neurotics are studied in connection with the transmission of acquired traits, which poses the question “under what conditions does memory enter into the archaic heritage?” The answer to this question is “if the event was important enough or repeated often enough.”[12]The clarification of psychoanalysis through biology and technology, given their connections, becomes inevitable. If “a person is born not sufficiently developed, with instinctive demands much less differentiated than those of other species,” if imprinting “is of much more important significance for him,” then in this case he appears thanks to objects that are inorganic technical beings and at the same time organized, between life and death, traces of completed lives, even phantoms: heritage is always haunting. However, this also means, beyond imprinting, in the biological itself.