Regarding about Repetition of the symbolic form, Eil Kahng mentioned a book in his text, which call "The shape of time" written by George Kubler.

​

One view, espoused by Kubler"the concept of period" style" introduced a type of art history that suffered from an uncomfortably wide margin of subjective error. 

​

Kahng said "Using his own long experience as a historian of non-Western antiquity, Kuber sought to resurrect the merits of form as a legitimate and more "objective" means of finding the shape of time, which, as he argued, is made visible only through reiteration and rupture: a material syncopation or prolonged rubato still graspable in "The History of Things" (a phrase that he used to qualify the title of his book)."

​

So "Repetition" allows us to restore an event and provides us with the possibility of comparative analysis and evaluation.

​

There are one of example is David's Death of Marat. Kahng explain it in this book, “David's recognition of the pretense of movement in any lifelike portrait, captured at the moment that its possibility is stolen by death, not unlike the "there-and-then-ness" of the still photograph, makes the same claim through the copyist/viewer's reenactment, repetition of vision as Deleuze/Péguy commented of Monet's Whreatstacks, it is David's portrait that repeats all its replicas." 

​

It also may be sufficient to simply rely on the helpful explication de texte supplied by Briankle Chang in an essay titled "Deleuze, Monet, and Being Repetitive"."

 

 the claim that "Monet's first water lily ... repeats all the others" also takes on a more precise meaning: it no longer suggests the eristic, counterintuitive proposition that an earlier act repeats later ones; far more radically, it states an architectural rule of timing: the so-called first impression, the first scene seen, the first stroke, in short, the very constitution of firstness as such, is already repeated occurrence. As the Lacanian-Deleuzianrefrains suggest, an event always takes place twice before it really happens, or, as I dare to rephrase it, an event must take place virtually before it occurs effectively. It is this twice-over of an event that consolidates the event's phenomenal integrity, and it is its virtual occurrence before the fact that restores to the event its truth as retroactive happening, the aftermath of a "somber precursor," that delivers what comes henceforth always in the form of déjå pas encore.

​

Déjå means "already"

Pas encore means "not yet"

Déjå vu means "already seen"

Therefore, I argue that Déjå vu would let us feel the disorder of time by repeating those memories that happened already and those memories happened not yet, thus we can suffer the wonderful experience of Déjå Vu.