How to explain the passage that Lacan makes regarding «desire and lack of being» in his classical teaching, to the field of «jouissance and the One» at the end of his teaching?

How is desire articulated with the field of jouissance and with the field of love?

In «The Superego at the End of the Analysis» you point out that the «new signifier» has effects on the superego. What does this nomination imply and what is the status of the new signifier?

In Seminar XI Lacan states that the «Desire of the Analyst» is to obtain the absolute difference: «How do you read this statement?

Can we think of a possible articulation between the «Desire of the analyst» and the Sinthome at the end of an analysis?

In your writing «On the Analyst’s Silence» you pose it as «the other side of the analyst’s desire .»

What is the difference between the analyst’s desire, the desire to «be» an analyst, and the desire for the Pass?