Interpretation gains from upholding the point of view of the excluded third with whom the patient can identify. This hypothesis gives greater depth, on the one hand, to the idea that the only third is an excluded third and, on the other hand, leads to the idea of how much the “child third”, as an “assumption” of the excluded third, and the “paternal third”, owe each other. In other words, the only third is an excluded third, and the third only involves two elements since the two modalities of the third, the paternal third and the child third, are linked to each other. Technically, when interpretation lacks the point of view of the excluded third with whom the patient can identify, it may prove harmful and runs the risk of being persecuting. However, in practice, the third only involves two elements insofar as it brings a third element into play, the feminine third, the “speech-bearer” of the primal scene.