Definitions HQ

The Subject supposed to know (n.) in ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠analysis is the analyst — no one need believe him perfect or infinite for the function to work.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) in ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the analyst embodies an absolute certainty, comparable to Descartes's cogito, that the analysand is guilty and that his acts have a secret meaning.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the Other onto whom my own knowledge is displaced — like Columbo, who knows who did it the moment he meets the culprit, and only then gathers proofs.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not the analyst but the analysand: the analyst tells him "say whatever, it will be marvelous," and so installs him as the one who knows.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) drives ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the transference — but if the analyst were also supposed to know the truth about that supposed knowledge, it would be fatal to the transference.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠supposed to know signification — that from which no one escapes once he formulates it — and the subject is credited with it simply by being a subject of desire.

The Subject supposed to know (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the analysand (i.e. Patient's) fantasy that the analyst can penetrate into the secret meaning of his words, resulting in the patient's experience whereby otherwise insignificant details acquire special meaning. This is the logic upon which 'transference' works.