space of analysis, of (mis)interpretation

"To deterritorialize psychoanalysis, consequently, can mean nothing less – although perhaps it will mean something more – than to remove it from the one constant that defines its formal operation and reproduction of its authority, and by this I mean the analytic space itself (i.e., to deterritorialize the very space in which the unconscious is produced and reproduced)." (69)"the psychoanalytic machine of interpretation operates by one simple procedure: to negate the subject of the statement in favour of the subject of enunciation. … Thus, the analytic machine ‘produces’ the unconscious by splitting the subject of the statement from the subject of enunciation, and it is by means of this simple procedure of division (or cleavage in the heart of the speaking subject) that the unconscious suddenly appears … The analyst only materializes the division by occupying the position of the subject’s true enunciation (a place that in the first place is handed over, or sacrificed, to the analyst by the patient), and by refusing any immediate or direct object of the statement as the subject’s true intention. This unveils what Deleuze calls a double-machine – that of interpretation accompanied by subjectivization. What the patient wanted to say is translated into another language – and primarily that of hysteria. … is there an unconscious, properly speaking, outside the analytic session?" (71)"the very condition of interpretation is misinterpretation" (73)"the analyst can only speak as a dead man, that is, dead to the question of desire, which is an issue that should concern only the living" (75)what's the negative space of the analytic space? if all interpretation is "false," and everything is interpretation, is truth possible? or is it only possible when it is not occupied? is occupation best understood as a material location (an interruption), or a process of de/centralization (a flow)?