Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland

of speech as, if you wish, reminding him of an absolutely painful nostalgia thatmust never be reawakened. That is why I would say, if a parl’être pulls himselftogether at that moment and makes a completely different sound be heard, Lacanfor example in his heroic days, the analyst in question – let us think of the IPA oreven, without going that far, to what happened among ourselves – can literallynot support the echo that this sends back to him. This split of which I amspeaking, which it is tempting to bring about, because it avoids division, implies ineffect for the analyst, if he is split, that implies that his Other also is split and hisOther is split, I would say, between an Other that would never lie and an Otherwhich always lies, if you wish the Devil, the one who deceives, and to defy whomit is enough, in order not to make a mistake, it is enough not to be a dupe. Youknow well that the non-dupes err, and you see that it is the renunciation of thisduplicity of the Other that the subject is necessarily in a position of passing on,namely, of being a heretic. And I would point out to you that Lacan, more thanonce, designated himself specifically as a heretic, and especially as passing it on.My transitory hypothesis, is to say that in the red arrow which goes from B4 to R4(1), which make S 2 and S(Ø) communicate, an arrow that I drew above in violet(3), which makes one go from the fading of $ ◊ D to S(Ø), is the Passe, themovement by which something about the Passe can be said.Now let us explore still more, if you wish, the scandalous character, that’s how itshould be described, of the message transmitted in S(Ø), the message of theheretic. I told you at the outset there are no longer these two divinities, there istherefore no longer a guarantee for the moneybox. The subject speaks having inhimself a responder to what he says. What is interesting, when we read, - I ammaking a rapid parenthesis – The Manual of Inquisitors, and they are interestingbecause they correspond literally to what happened in a recent Passe for us – thefact is that the inquisitor picks out perfectly what is in question in this S(Ø); hepicks it out in his way of defining a heretic: a heretic is not somebody who errs,who is in error, ‘errare humanum est’, it is the one who perseveres, it is the onewho says ‘I say and I repeat’, namely, the one who poses an ‘I’ to which anotherdiabolical ‘I’ – ‘errare diabolicum’ – a diabolical one responds, and effectively this Iof enunciating, is diabolical because like the devil, it is diabolically ungraspable:the devil does not always lie. If he always lied that would come down to saying72