This appears to be an intervention into an École freudienne de la psychanalyse study day on the Pass. Jacques Lacan spoke during the afternoon of 3rdNovember 1973 in Paris.

Published in English

Probably translated by Scott Savaiano

Published bilingual at www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan ( 169. Sur l’experience de la Passe, 1973)

Published in French:

Intervention dans la séance de travail ‘Sur la passe’ : 3rdNovember 1973

– in ‘les Lettres de l’École freudienne’ : 1975 : n° 15 : pp. 185-193.

– Ornicar? V12/13 1977

– Published in French at https://ecole-lacanienne.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1973-11-03b.pdf

Citations

– The Logic and Surprises of Supervision at the Time of the Parlêtre : 7th March 2015 (Italy) : Éric Laurent.

See this site /5 Authors A-Z (Laurent or Index of Authors’ texts). P118 of Philip Dravers’s translation of Laurent’s text

How can we conceive the Formation of psychoanalysts today, in the psychoanalytic orientation deduced from the teaching of Jacques Lacan? To consider this formation, Lacan based himself on what grounds the psychoanalyst’s position, namely the existence of the unconscious, as brought to light by Freud. From this emphasis a paradoxical statement can be deduced:

“There is no formation of the psychoanalyst, there are only formations of the unconscious.”[1]

Today we can appreciate the significance of this sentence like never before. Today, when multiple powers are seeking to legislate, in the place of psychoanalytic societies, on the titles that they give, and when ever-increasing sources of institutional legitimation (from the university to health care systems) encourage new forms of authorisation.

[l.] Lacan, J., “Intervention à l’EFP, le 3 novembre 1973”, Lettes de l’EFP, No. 15, p. 191 – see below

***

– On the Formation of the Analyst : 1st July 2001 : Jacques-Alan Miller

This article was originally published under the title “Réponse à Che vuoi? Sur la formation de l’analyste en 2001”, in the journal Che vuoi?, 2 no. 15, July 2001. Quote from p3 of Philip Dravers’s translation of Miller’s text, available on request:

6. IMMERSION IN THE SCHOOL

If an analyst is essentially an analysed [analysé], if he becomes a practitioner only afterwards, then analytic formation is reduced to the treatment. This is the meaning of Lacan’s 1973 quip:

There is no such thing as analytic formation, there are only formations of the unconscious. [3]

This is because there is no formation / training that is not indexed on an identification; as soon as analytic treatment is conceived as a process of disidentification, the name formation is no longer appropriate, and the analytic group has the structure of a Russellian set: it is the group of without-groups. In fact, the EFP never organised anything resembling a curriculum. Yet at the same time, Lacan wanted analysts who were not mediocrities, but experts and scholars. No doubt he also wanted them to be able to bracket off competence and knowledge [competence et connaissances] in in order to welcome the unheard of in a case, but this presupposed that they had this competence and this knowledge.

[3] [T.N. Lacan, J., “Intervention à l’EFP le 3 novembre 1973 », Lettres de l’EFP, No. 15, p. 191] See below

***

Quotation from this text by Lacan

P5 of Freud2Lacan’s translation, possibly by Scott Savaiano :

So this is what I get for proposing this experiment. I get something that is absolutely not in the nature of the discourse of the master, even less so in the nature of the magistrate [magister]. You have to know how to pick out the things of which I do not speak — I have never spoken of psychoanalytic formation, I have spoken of unconscious formations. There is no analytic formation. It is completely wrong to call the very particular experience that arises in a psychoanalysis didactic. The experience is not didactic. Why do you think I have tried to completely erase the term didactic, and to speak of pure psychoanalysis?