ABSTRACT
In listening to these two speakers, I have the same impression today that I had gained listening to previous dialogues between Kleinians and Lacanians. Jane Temperley reminded me of a woman who has just come in from the garden covered with earth. She knows the Latin names of the flowers to which she refers occasionally but her knowledge and experience is rooted in the plants she has been dealing with. When I listen to Dany Nobus, he reminded me of a man who works in a library reading books, in fact only one book - the book of Lacan, which is is a very difficult book. Like all Lacanian papers, Dany’s serves as an exposition of what was in the mind of Lacan and what Lacan was thinking. I know that there is no such thing as pure perception and that what he perceives and how he perceives it depends on the theoretical frames and contexts of his ear. It’s very important, indeed, to understand these differences. But it appears to me, that the two speakers are really talking about different things. They’re not really, in a sense, engaging, although it may seem that they are.
