BLE: While studying the transcripts of the Jacques Lacan’s seminars, I found a passage where you said something to this effect: When Lacan left the International Psychoanalytic Association and founded the Freudian School, breaking with a long tradition in the psychoanalytic movement, when he said ‘I found; as always, alone’, he committed an act that weighs upon each and every one of us. He demanded of us a kind of return, in a certain avoidance of his responsibilities. Similarly, when he rebaptized something that had come down to us from the ‘part-object’ as ‘objet petit a’, his act of denomination, his assumption of the paternity of a notional reclassification, placed all of us in a transferential relation toward his enacting of psychoanalysis after Freud. How are we to speak, after this act? It strikes me as having had an inhibiting effect. Most of us, certainly myself, have found it difficult to know how to proceed analytically in specific fields that are not exactly Lacan’s, or that do not follow closely in his wake. We have a problem talking about our involvement in psychoanalysis. Or rather, our problem is that we don’t want to talk about it in ways other than those signalled by Lacan.