Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland

the object of desire is not unknown to themselves, that they can very preciselydesignate it, I would even say that what makes you uneasy perhaps in them, isthat the voice of phantasy is so strong in them that there will be no hope for thevoice of the S(Ø); since I am talking about trust you can clearly see that that posesthe problems of the conditions by which an analyst can be worthy of trust? Howis he so? Briefly I would say for the moment precisely that his desire should notbe placed like the one that I have tried to describe, but this his desire should nothave as a voice of clogging up the bar by making the object emerge but that hisdesire is to maintain this bar, and to bring it to incandescence just as whathappens at the point B4 – R4 where the bar is carried to this point of extremeincandescence, I would say briefly. All of this does not yet give us an account ofwhy at S(O), while the subject has no guarantees, what ensures that he reachesthe point of being able to sustain what he says? And how he must account for thefact that if he gets there it is along the path of B3-R3, - as you remember – whenthe Other is in the position of absolute Knowledge, the subject can arrive at S(Ø)after having undergone the experience of the dispossession of his thinking, a totaldispossession of his thinking.Let us suppose, if you wish, to go a little further, an analyst who has not Passedthrough this dispossession of his thinking and who maintains with psychoanalytictheory a relationship of a possessor, of relationships of possession comparable tothose, if you wish of the miser and his moneybox. Such an analyst, in hisrelationship to the theory, naturally can only see the gain of the operations; thegain of the operation is obvious; the thing is within hands reach and by definitionwhat he does not see, is what he loses in the operation. What does he lose?Precisely what he loses, is the dimension of topology that there is in him, namely,the dimension of the locus of enunciating, namely, the dimension of presencewhich in him can answer ‘Present’, answer to what he enunciates. What I wouldthen say, is that, in this position, is not the subject, the analyst in question, in aposition that corresponds psychoanalytically to flat denial, namely,, is it possibleon the one hand to say yes to knowledge and on the other hand to say no to thelocus from which this knowledge is emitted. If this split takes place, one maythink that the truth which is in the subject having brought about this split, byhaving remained outside the circuit of speech, is going to short circuit the circuit71