Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland

a certain way, in the Passe, I would not say that for all that he occupies theposition of a passant, insofar as being placed at the locus of truth at that moment,he is not in the right place to say something about it. Can we at the same timespeak about this locus, B4-R4, and say this locus?We have already said, if what is proper to this S(Ø) is not to be able to be hiddenin any moneybox, to return to our metaphor of the possessive analyst, we takeanother step and now we are saying, that as a locus, this locus does not say itselfas such and cannot arrive as such to the jury.Good, I’m going to illustrate that in the following way: when you hear a Lacaniananalyst, a Lacanian disciple speaking about Lacan passant, since Lacan has definedhimself as not ceasing to pass the Passe, when you hear this passant, can you saythat in hearing this passant you understand where Lacan is speaking from? Youcannot say so. From where does Lacan speak, the S(Ø) of Lacan, you can pick outeventually when you hear him or when you read him; when you hear him, I pointout to you here that I am taking another step, that he always supports himselfwith something written. Another example: do you think that what happened topsychoanalysis, before Lacan got involved, is to be imputed uniquely to the factthat analysts of that time were bad Passers or indeed that the jury d’agrémentthat they represented, aggregated in a way that was not that.The two hypotheses are perhaps true, but not sufficient. If Lacan at a given time,reminded analysts that it would be better to read Freud than to read Fenichel,what was he doing by reminding them of that, if not that if they really wanted toagree with Freud, they needed a Passer, is, I was going to say, worthy of thisdefinition, namely, the topological arrangement, the writing of Freud whichtestifies that Freud does not separate what he says from the locus from which hesays it, and if one wants to bring about, that in certain psychoanalytic societies, adumbing down of Freud’s work – you can hear that in this dumbing the word vel isbarred, namely, that one no longer hears any more the dimension of ‘Freudparl’être’: what one ends up with is effectively a taking possession of the theorythat one can put in a moneybox.78