Talmudic marxism and mastery marxism

I quote a passage I read on the web:

We can thus distinguish between two types of Lacanians:  Oedipal or Talmudic Lacanians and post-mastery Lacanians that work on the premise that “there is no Other of the Other” and that “the big Other does not exist.”  A Talmudic Lacanian is a Lacanian that restricts their discussion of Lacan and clinical practice to what Lacan taught, treating him as a master or Father who knows the truth, and endlessly interpreting that text in much the same way that the Talmudic scholar endlessly interprets Talmud without ever adding anything to it.  The post-mastery Lacanian, by contrast, holds that Lacan showed us the way in terms ofhow he read and interpreted– for example, we get something entirely new in his way of approaching Freud, not a rote repetition of Freud –and in terms of how he worked with the mathemes.  Recognizing that every Father or Master is castrated, that they’re allshams or imposters and semblances of mastery, the post-master Lacanian recognizes that Lacan said many valuable things, but that he didn’t say it all— indeed, Lacan constantly emphasizes that no one can say it all because “truth can only be “half-said” –and works with his teaching not as a closed system, but as a generative methodology for generating new insights that are remote from anything Lacan himself ever articulated.

This is even more true of Marx: there are talmudic  marxist that endlessy repeat the words of the Master only permuting them, and (a minority of) marxists that think marxism is a method, not a doctrine. Good examples are Lenin and Wu Ming. But the same is true of many master, such as Aristotle or others. In (good) science masters are always discoverers of a method (Netwon for instance).