Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland

that exists, he says what he believes to be true. What the analyst knows, is thathe is only speaking approximately about what is true, because he knows nothingabout the True. Freud here, is delusional, and just enough so, for he imaginesthat True, is what he calls, for his part, the traumatic kernel. This is how heformally expresses himself, namely, that in the measure that the subjectenunciates something closer to his traumatic kernel, this so called kernel, andwhich has no existence, it is only its prostitute (roulure) that the analyser is justlike his analyst, namely, as I pointed out in invoking my grandson, the learningthat he has undergone of one tongue among others, which for him is lalanguethat I write, as you know, in a single word, in the hope of fitting (ferrer), thetongue itself, which equivocates with faire-réel (making real).Lalangue whatever it is, is an obscenity. It is what Freud designates as – pardonme here for the equivocation - l’obrescène, it is also what he calls the other stage,the one that language occupies because of what is called its structure, elementarystructure which is summarised in that of kinship.I point out to you that there are sociologists who have enunciated under thepatronage of someone called Robert Needham, who is not the Needham who hasbusied himself with so much care with Chinese science, but another Needham –the Needham of Chinese science is not called Robert – this one, the Needham inquestion, imagines that he is doing better than the others by making the remark,which is moreover correct, that kinship is to be questioned, namely, that itinvolves in fact something else, a much greater variety, a much greater diversitythan that which, – it has to be clearly said, this is what he refers to – than whatthe analysers say about it. But what is quite striking, is that the analysers, fortheir part, speak only of that, so that the incontestable remark that kinship hasdifferent values in different cultures, does not prevent the resifting by theanalysers of their relationship with their relations, moreover, it must be said, theirnext of kin, is a fact that the analyst has to support. There is no example that ananalyser notes the specificity, the particularity which differentiates from otheranalysers, his relationship with his more or less immediate kin.110