If Lacan said that there is no meta-language (because, for example, there is no Other of the Other or Truth of the Truth) then this does not mean that there is no position from which to produce an effect of truth within the communicative exchange. This is precisely what he names “interpretation.” Interpretation is the process of cutting discourse – cutting speech, any speech about any subject – in such a way as to produce a truth effect. Thus, there is, in all senses of the phrase, such a thing as a para-language. This para-language is the analyst’s discourse. It is the discourse we all step into when we have an authentic communicative exchange; authentic, here, in the etymological sense.
One can sit in a cafe and have a conversation about investments from the position of the one who in reality knows absolutely nothing about investments and nonetheless produce an authentic communicative exchange. What is more: this exchange will be more truthful than an exchange between investors who are both, in a sense, in the know. The analyst is therefore the one who can have a conversation about any subject of discourse.