Such as it is presented, the Italian group has that for him which it is tripod. That can be enough to make that one assoie above. To make the seat of the psychoanalytical speech, it is time to put it at the test: the use will slice of its balance. That it thinks - “with its feet”, it is what is with the range to be it speaking as soon as it vagit. Still will make one well hold for bench, at the point present, that voice for-or-against is what decides preponderance of the thought if the feet mark time of discord. * ** I suggest to them starting from that of which I had to make recasting of another group, by name the E.F.P. The analyst known as of the School, A.E., from now on recruits himself there to subject himself to the test known as of the master key with what however nothing obliges it, since as well, the School delegates of them some which are not offered to it, under analyst member of the School, A.M.E. The Italian group, if he wants to hear me, will stick to naming those which will postulate their entry there on the principle of the master key taking the risk that there is not. This principle is as follows, which I said in these terms. The analyst is authorized only itself, that goes from oneself. Little him chaut a guarantee that my School undoubtedly gives him under the ironic figure of the A.M.E. It is not with that that it operates. The Italian group is not in a position to provide this guarantee. It with what it has to take care, it is that to be authorized itself there is only of the analyst. Because my thesis, inaugurating to break with the practice by what of alleged Sociétés make analysis an aggregation does not imply however that no matter who is an analyst. Because in what it states, it is of the analyst that it acts, it supposes that there is. To be authorized car-is not laughed (tuali) ser. Because I posed in addition that it is not-all which the analyst raises. Not-all being with speaking could not be authorized to make an analyst. With proof that the analysis is there necessary, still is not it sufficient. Only the analyst, is not no matter who, is authorized only itself. There is, maintaining it is made but it is of what they function. This function makes only probable the ex-sistence of the analyst. Sufficient probability to guarantee that there is that the chances are large for each one, leaves them for all insufficient. If it were appropriate however that function only of the analysts, to take it for goal would be worthy of the Italian tripod. I would like to clear this way here if he wants to follow it. * ** It is necessary for that (it is from which results that I waited to clear it), it is necessary for that of reality to hold account. Maybe from what comes out from our experiment of the knowledge: there is knowledge in reality. Though that one, it is not the analyst, but the scientist who has to place it. The analyst places another knowledge, in another place but which knowledge in reality must hold account. The scientist produces the knowledge, of the pretence to have the subject of it. Condition necessary but not sufficient. If it does not allure the Master while veiling to him that it is its ruin there, this knowledge will remain buried as it was it during twenty centuries when the scientist believed himself prone, but only of more or less eloquent essay. I return to this too known only to recall that the analysis depends on that, but that for him in the same way that is not enough. It was necessary that the clamour is added to it of an alleged humanity for which the knowledge is not made since it does not wish it. There is of analyst only so that this desire comes to him, either that already by there it is the reject of the aforesaid (humanity). I say already: it is there the condition whose by some side of his adventures, the analyst must the mark carry. With its congeneric of “knowing” to find it. It jumps to the eyes that this supposes another knowledge of before elaborate, of which the scientific knowledge gave the model and takes the responsibility. It is that even as I charge to him, to have with the only rejects of learned ignorance, transmitted a new desire. That it is a question of checking to make of the analyst. At all events the EC what science owes with the hysterical structure, the novel of Freud, they are his loves with the truth. That is to say the model whose analyst, if there is one of them, represents the fall, the reject I known as said, but not any. To believe that science is true under the pretext which it is transmissible (mathematically) is a properly delirious idea that each one of its steps refutes by rejecting with the old moons a first formulation. There is of this fact no progress which is notable fault of knowing the continuation of it. There is only the discovery of a knowledge in reality. Order which does not have anything to make with that imagined of before science, but that null reason does not ensure to be a good hor. The analyst, if it winnows reject which I said, it is well to have an outline of what humanity is located of the good hor (it is where it bathes: for it there is only good hor), and it is in what it must have determined the cause of his horror, of his characteristic, with him, detached from that of all, horror of knowing. Consequently, it can be a reject. It is what the analyst had to do to him at least to smell. If it is not carried from there to enthusiasm, it can y have had well analyzes, but of analyst no chance. It is what my “master key”, of fresh date, illustrates often enough so that the frontier runners are dishonoured there to leave the dubious thing, or else the case fall under the blow from a polished variation from its candidature. Ç' will have another range in the Italian group, if it follows me in this business. Because at the School of Paris, there is no breakage for as much. The analyst being authorized only itself, his fault passes to the frontier runners and the meeting however continues for happiness general, tinted depression. What the Italian group would gain to follow me, it is a little more the serious one than it to what I arrive to my prudence. It is necessary for that that it takes a risk. * * *
I now articulate the things for people who hear me. II has there the (A) object. It ex-sist now, of what I built it. I suppose that one knows of them the four episodical substances which one can with what it is useful, wrap impulse by what each one is aimed in the middle and reached there only one shooting which misses it. That made support with the most effective achievements, and as well with realities more attaching. If it is the fruit of the analysis, return the known as subject to its dear studies. It will decorate few additional vases the supposed inheritance to make the good mood of God. That one likes it to believe, or that that revolts, it is the same price for the family tree from where the unconscious one remains. Ga (R) S or the bitchy girl in question makes adequate relay there. That it is not authorized to be an analyst, because it will never have time to contribute to the knowledge, without what there is no chance that the analysis continues to make premium on the market, that is to say: that the Italian group is not dedicated to the extinction. The knowledge concerned, I emitted the principle of it as ideal point that all makes it possible to suppose when one has the direction of the diagram: it is that there is no sexual relation, of report/ratio I hear, who can put myself in writing. Useless from testing there, will say to me one, certainly not you, but if your candidates, it is one moreover with rétorquer, not to be likely null to contribute to the knowledge in which you will die out. Without trying this report/ratio of the writing, not average indeed to arrive so that I have, at the same time that I posed his inex-sistence, proposed as a goal by where the psychoanalysis would equalize itself with science with knowing to show that this report/ratio is impossible to write, that is to say that it is in that that it is not affirmable but as well nonrefutable with the title of the truth. With for consequence that there is no truth which one can say all, even this one, since this one one says it little neither nor much. The truth is not used for only to make the place where this knowledge denounces itself. But this knowledge is nothing. Because this in question, it is that reaching reality, it determines it just as easily that the knowledge of science. Naturally this knowledge is not cooked at all. Because it should be invented. Ni more nor less, not to discover it since the truth is nothing more there than firewood, I say the truth well such that it proceeds of F… trery (orthography to be commented on, it is not the F… tery). The knowledge by designated Freud of unconscious I', it is that that the human humus for its perenniality from one generation to another invents, and now that it was inventoried, one knows that that shown a lack of imagination éperdu. One can hear it only under benefit of this inventory: that is to say to leave outstanding the imagination which is short there, and to use the symbolic system and reality that here the imaginary valley (this is why one cannot drop it) and to try, from them, which all the same proved reliable in the knowledge, to increase the resources thanks to what this annoying report/ratio, one would manage to occur some to make love worthier than the expansion of chattering, than it constitutes to date, - sicut palea - said St Thomas by finishing his life of monk. Find to me an analyst of this tile, which would connect the trick on another thing that on an outlined organon. I conclude: the role of the frontier runners, it is the tripod itself which will ensure it until new order since the group has only these three feet. All must turn around the writings to appear.
This “note” of Jacques Lacan was addressed in 1973 to its “Italian group”; the people concerned did not take action on the suggestions expressed here.