According to some astrologers, the planets ruling the first year of life (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun) in the theory of the ages would have an “affective” nature. The most recent studies in cognitive science show that the reality is quite different…

Very affectionately…

Read in No. 2 of Astrologie Pratique new formula, December 1990, pages 56–57: “Mercury, affective planet… the time may have come… to frankly dare the ‘provocations’ that we have insinuated”. Affectively (effectively?), this is indeed a provocation. Following excerpt from the article in question: “No doubt it would be less shocking to consider the mercurian function as an affective function if we clearly distinguished the affective from the affect. We call affective what expresses a personal preference. Affects concern the group ‘e’ of the system R.E.T. (Venus, Mars, Neptune): we are affected, touched. So a function like marsian function can be a function of affect without being affective (with it, one is touched — affected — without this affect being affective). On the other hand, the mercurian function is affective but does not generate affects: I am not affected, but a priori interested or not, involved or not.”

Let us summarize the point: Mercury would be an affective without affects (or even without affectation, which would correspond well to his perpetually demobilized side?), and Mars an affected without affectivity. Or there is play on words, or affected use (1) of said words. Explanation taken from this article: “The ‘R’ level is that of ‘one’. The three functions that start from this level in the R.E.T. therefore operate from a prior unity, in other words from personal affinities. Affinity: undoubtedly this is one of the key words of this group. There can only be privileged relations here, and therefore in some way affective.” We do not see by what logical-semantic or semantic-logical pirouette one can assimilate so cavalierly a “prior unit” to one “privileged relation” to arrive at equivalence ‘R’ = personal affinities = affectivity. The relationship, privileged or not, is really not self-evident… Even if it means playing on words, the affectionate Mercurian assigned to this article offers you two, and real ones, ‘tR’ and all: “must not push the same ‘R’ in the outputs ‘e’” and “Mercury, it’s not every day the affect”.

It seems necessary, to clarify things, to make a small detour by these emotional monuments, unfortunately too often affected, clearly of level ‘rR’ — after all, they only reproduce words — that are dictionaries. We will consider affectionately, but without excessive affectation, the assignment of certain concepts to certain actual realities. In other words: let’s define.

▶ Affect: “Term designating any energetic phenomenon that occurs in the psyche following the attack of the organism by a stimulus. The two great divisions of affect remain pleasure and unpleasure. This term is used both when it comes to a stimulus playing on the unconscious or the subconscious (eg: in the dream) as on the conscience” (2).

▶ Affectivity: “1) Set of experienced or possible affects. When it comes to sensory affects prior to any recognition (for example, diffuse, non-localized pain preceding pain whose origin is identified), it seems that their ‘role’ varies according to their intensity. 2) General designation of emotions, feelings, passions, especially considered in relation to a given individual. According to some, the aim of art is the exhibition or the transposition of affectivity (we also say in this sense ‘affective life’). It is the deepest, most extensive part of sensitivity (= particular liveliness of sensations and feelings). The problem of the influence of affectivity on intellectual life, especially rational life, is multifaceted. The relatively recent discovery of the coherence specific to affectivity completes its particularization” (3).

▶ Affinity: “Word of chemical (and even alchemical) origin and unfortunately imprecise meaning: it designates a possibility of alliance by mutual ‘attraction’ between bodies. By metaphor, it could be useful to designate an attraction due to similarity […]. The word would then have a meaning close to that of analogy, but more precise. It is thus […] that one speaks of the elective affinity (that is to say of an irrational sympathy at first, and essential) which unites an amateur of painting to the work of such an artist” (4).

These definitions provide serious language bases, verifiable by everyone, to try to discriminate between affects and emotions. It is on purpose that trivial definitions have been eliminated for the moment: you will easily find them in your Larousse or Robert familiar. By taking up the definition of affect mentioned above, we are forced to admit that all the planets are capable of creating affects. Indeed, all planetary stimuli can be likened to “energetic phenomena” producing “effects in the psyche”. From a perspective “Subject”, when the “tendency” planetary is updated satisfactorily, there is indeed “pleasure”, and “displeasure” when it updates partially, unsatisfactorily, or when it fails to update. We can therefore speak of “pleasures” or “displeasures” in the manifestation of saturnian, uranian or plutonian affects (or drives). Affects are therefore by no means the prerogative of the group ‘e’. Let’s go further: according to the above-mentioned rational definition, the term affect “is used both when it comes to a stimulus acting on the unconscious or the subconscious (e.g. in dreams) as well as on consciousness”. Translation: the affects would be ‘R’, ‘E’ or ‘T’ indifferently. Finally, the notion of affinity, even “personal”, does not at all refer directly to that of “the previous unit” constitutive of the ‘R’ level, unless one assumes that the concept of irrational attraction is equivalent to that of unity.

But then, what is affectivity? If this concept defines “emotions, feelings, passions, specially considered in relation to a given individual”, one could agree that the ‘e’ level is more specific to the affective than the others… in all relativity, however: by referring to the neurophysiological level (and not hermeneutico-psy), we could evoke a “feeling” plutonian (“T/not-e/not-r”), an organism “sensitized” (!) to the plutonian dimension being more “touched”, “affected”, and even “moved”, by the objective parameters of distance, depth and density. With this in mind — and continuing to play on words and concepts — the “plutonian” is a big affected-affective person, like everyone else.

Despite the angularity of a conjunction Sun-Mercury when I was born, I must admit that these problems of words, concepts and definitions affect me somewhat. Like what, an affective dominant Mercury can generate affects… But irony enough (affective, of course): the concepts of affect and affectivity are closely intertwined and intertwined: the definitions above attest to this. We can only radically discriminate between them by playing on both their trivial meaning and their philosophical meaning. Philosophically, as we have seen, each of us is “affected”. In common language, should the term affectivity be reserved solely for the ‘e’ level, or should its spectrum be broadened to the ‘R’ level? And since it is a question of “keywords” (to open the doors of which psychiatric consulting room?), should we endow the ‘R’ with the keyword “affective”, the ‘e’ of that of “affected”? And what then becomes of the ‘T’? Judicious, affectionate, ironic and mercurial proposition: the best keyword describing the ‘T’ is without a doubt, in this vein, “affect-‘T’”. And in this context, what “keywords” and names of birds confuse the levels ‘r’, ‘E’, ‘t’ and ‘T’?

In his “Astro-notes” of the previous Cahiers (5), Nicola recalled that “affectivity according to the definition given by the child Larousse: ‘set of affective phenomena (emotions, feelings, passions, etc.)’, would bring us closer to the ‘small e’… provided we understand the families of the R.E.T. comparatively, otherwise everything is affective.” Let’s tune our violins: the definition of affectivity compatible with the ‘e’ is that of current language, practically identical to the definition in the following restricted sense: “general designation of emotions, feelings, passions, especially considered in relation to a given individual.”

The theory of the wise…

But back to the serious stuff (?). Why is it that an opinion is asserting itself, according to which a “prior unit” of the ‘R’ level would be synonymous with affectivity? This is probably due to an overly (exclusively?) interpretation “shrink” and “Subject” of the Theory of Ages. Most psychogeneticists — the majority of whom were “shot” to primary psychoanalytical theories — asserted, since the second half of the 20th century, that the development and learning of children under two were directly dependent on their relationship — affected and affective, if not affectionate, as it should be — to their immediate environment and therefore particularly to the mother or her (his) substitutes. In an empirical way, they cut out the different “learning” from the little man into “stadiums” which overlap with a striking similarity the periods of sidereal revolution of the planets of the solar system (similarity which they were unaware of, and which therefore in no way founded their methodologies).

Roughly speaking, as Pavlov unknowingly discovered the zodiac in neurological functioning, psychogeneticists unwittingly discovered the theory of ages in human development and chronological learning. Thanks be to them, no doubt, but as Nicola says, “the theory of ages does not limit itself to recording the work of psychogeneticists (Piaget, Wallon, Spitz), it sheds light on them (7)”. We therefore do not have to lag behind them, whatever fascination that may arise for their works, which fascination is not a little due to a narcissistic-reassuring satisfaction (in the style “phew, these people, real scientists, show us and prove to us that astrology is something ‘serious’!”).

Statements stating that “R = affectivity” actually fall under an elementary syllogism, which can be formulated as follows: “1° Most shrinks (chologists, chogeneticians, chanalysts) of recent years, hooked on the psy theories in vogue (it’s not ‘rR’, it’s affection, no doubt), affirm that the he child under the age of one is essentially a being overdetermined by his affectivity. 2° However, the theory of ages says that the ‘R’ level structures the first year of existence. 3° So, the ‘R’ is affective”.

Alright. This syllogism even apparently allows – and at the limit – to justify idiosyncrasies of the type “prior unity = affectivity”. It is enough for that to believe or think that the supporters of the first term of the syllogism are right, and that the second term is purely confirmatory of the first (it is the ABC of the successful syllogism). This for the ‘R’ level. But 1) are shrinks justified in asserting that the first year of life is essentially affective? We will see, in the light of the latest knowledge on the functioning of the human being in his first year, that we can strongly doubt it. 2) do we believe or think that the conditionalist statements are justified? Which amounts to this alternative: “Do conditionalist theories and practices need to be recognized-justified by the psy establishment and induce them to consider new working hypotheses and protocols of experimentation, or do the theories and practices of psych notables demand recognition- justified by conditionalist astrology?”

The “affective-but-not-affected” Mercury and the “affected-but not affective” Mars suggested by the article of Astrologie Pratique are neither credible nor serious. The study of the development of the child’s relationship with the world, as it appears in the latest research and experimental findings, shows, it seems unambiguous, that the cognitive and structural stages that the child experiences between his birth and one year, when they are studied by serious people, that the child of this age is much more concerned with the fact of building (even without knowing it) a world reading grid, than by developing affective relationships. At the limit, one can wonder if the alleged affectivity with which adults in psychology gratify infants is not the outrageous expression of a cerebral nature (uranian stage) hypertrophied which would project on the other, with a touch of contemptuous and subjective superiority, its own shortcomings and blindness (Uranus “non-e”).

The cortical child finally dissected?

I urge you to read a recent and fascinating book: “born human” (7). Its two authors are, one research director at the CNRS and director of studies at the École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, the other a research engineer at the École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications. The duo works in the joint cognitive science and psycholinguistics laboratory of the CNRS and the EHESS. Why specify their titles? To highlight the fact that neither of them are shrinks. This is important when it comes to understanding how human beings work: to paraphrase an expression that has become famous, the study of the psyche is too serious a thing to be entrusted to shrinks.

Philosophy of the book: “Cognitive science, at least as we see it, sets out precisely to determine, through experimental and formal study, the psychological properties which, beyond cultural and individual differences, are common to human beings. He must describe the functioning of memory, language, attention, interaction with others or perception, but also determine the nervous structures that support them. The study of behavior therefore requires the collaboration, even the integration of many disciplines, from linguistics to neurobiology and computer science.” You will notice that these poor shrinks have been forgotten in the list, which is not the result of a chance or an unfortunate oversight…

The approach is strictly materialistic. Some may regret it, but it has the advantage of ignoring any body-mind dualism. She favors the “net brain” related to “fuzzy brain”. It is also completely objective: nothing to do with the eternal shrink-subject. Central character and undisputed star: the baby. And here it is again Theory of Ages and the level ‘R’… This book indeed provides a good basis for reflection and meditation on the relationships and interactions between R.E.T. and theory of ages, structure and function.

The authors criticize “learning by instruction”, who is “the mechanism that allows structures present in the environment to be transposed into an organism”. Example illustrating this theory: it is because the child, blank sheet at birth, “lives within an environment rich in linguistic utterances, that he would integrate this structure and become capable of producing such utterances”. Which does not answer the question: “How is this learning possible?” Piaget tried to answer. According to him, the regular repetition of external stimuli (in our example, linguistic stimuli), would end up creating internal structures. The structure would be born from the function. Conditionalist translation: the theory of ages would create the R.E.T.

Another theory, which our two authors also reject: “learning by selection”, which supposes an individual “rich in potential, but so much so that it becomes incompetent. He must select the possibilities that are compatible with the environment and eliminate the others. The impoverishment of cognitive potential therefore allows progress in its effectiveness.” It is, among others, defended by Jean-Pierre Changeux, and poses a major problem: of what nature is the “diversity generator” innate in man? And what are the selection mechanisms? Conditionalist translation: this “diversity generator” would be a kind of R.E.T. non-innate, the selection mechanisms returning to the theory of ages.

Result of this double refusal: the two cognitive scientists think that there are innate structures, genetically transmitted and allowing, by keeping our initial example, to do automatically, if the environment allows it, the learning of language: “When the baby grows and moves towards mastering a natural language, we see a series of stages that seem to depend more on a “biological clock” than on the environment”. Conditionalist translation: first, there is the R.E.T., an innate structure, then comes the theory of ages, which allows it to be actualized. In this perspective, the innate and genetically transmitted structure would determine the functioning of the internal biological clock and would condition the chronological development of “learning”.

But back to the level ‘R’. Is it yes or no “affective”? Our two cognitive experts, forgive me the expression, dab the coquillard. The multitude of experiments to which they subjected the babies lead them to affirm that “we do not have to learn to coordinate the different data of our senses to extract objects from them, as if by some miracle. From the outset, the perceptual world is organized, and this, because it refers to abstract representations that originate. They provide, in a way, schemas that make it possible to establish correspondences between stimuli.” The latest experiments carried out on babies confirm the overall perception of the child less than a month old (lunar stage). Then, the baby gradually structures his vision and perception of the world from “abstract representations that originate”. The words used make absolutely no reference to affectivity (8). The formulation evokes very precisely the “Extensive R”: innate, pre-established models allowing us to represent the world: “From space to objects, the baby seems equipped with a rich model of the world.”

Better: we know that the order of the theory of ages is not that of the R.E.T. Our representations only become conscious solar stadium, between 8 and 12 months (confirmed by cognitive scientists). Previously we live mercurian stadium, then to venusian stage, in a world of self-unconscious proto-representations, which this book postulates: “thus, it is perfectly possible, and even plausible, that the model of the physical world is expressed in the newborn only in the form of a few rather primitive mechanisms, similar to the precursor behaviors.”

Conclusion: cognitive scientists, through their experiments, research and work, are in the process of discovering the R.E.T. in the man. Analyzing the behavior of children under one year old, they objectively describe an “extensive R” which has absolutely nothing to do with any “affectivity” whatsoever and which bears a striking resemblance to the ‘R’ as defined by Nicola. The conditionalists, equipped with a powerful and prospective theoretical apparatus, could have foreseen for a long time (had anticipated) this type of discovery.

So we don’t have to fall behind any psychological (or cognitive, or psycholinguistic, etc.) establishment whatsoever. Which does not mean that conditionalist astrology should flirt, play favorites or hide in a sectarian ideological bunker: it is by remaining itself, by maintaining, enriching, deepening, criticizing its own theories and practices (even by eliminating those of them which prove to be erroneous and obsolete) that it will be enriched by contact with other disciplines, but also, when the time comes, that it will fertilize them with its original and specific approach to reality.

That said, the cognitive scientists, objective supporters of the “net brain”, may not sufficiently take into account the implications of “fuzzy brain” on behaviors. Hypothesis: would the first be rather “cognitive”, the second rather “affective”? To be continued…

Read this book, and you will realize for yourself that the ‘R’ has nothing to do with the affective… except during the venusian stage. In No. 4 of Astrologie Pratique, it is nevertheless said on page 56 that it “Few conditionalist astrologers will be surprised that this (affective) dimension of the mercurian function is ignored by outdated typologies […]. It is up to everyone to observe whether the Mercurian interests are not personal interests, unreasoned, if they do not proceed from impulses.”

On this subject, a personal remark from a very concerned person: born under an angular Sun-Mercury conjunction and a non-dominant Venus, I absolutely do not feel determined primarily by a need for love or affection. I would rather function, among other things and through this ‘R’ configuration, as a curious and open mind that wants and needs to know and be recognized. Liked it or not, I don’t care. I would never trade a gram of knowledge/recognition for a ton of affection. “Your ‘R’ group expresses itself where you make personal, affective choices (even outside the affective domain): it can be a crush on an idea, a theory, a meeting, a project, a place”, claims our deformer. Sorry: my ‘R’ level reacted to the astrological idea and the conditionalist theory on a… whim — objective moreover: this vision of Man closely associated with the totality of his environment went, completely in the meaning of an ‘R’ in associative excitement. I don’t see what the heart has to do with it. If you are a “each” at the dominant ‘R’ level, do not hesitate to write to us to share your testimony and your thoughts on this subject.

In the meantime, there is a majority of conditionalists who are surprised by these ramblings on the affectivity of the ‘R’. Finally, if, from the perspective of a subjective astro-psychology, the “personal interests” irrational come under Mercury, the Cahiers prefer to be interested in an objective astrology, for which there is no personal interest (mercurian or other) which is not, at bottom, irrational: the most reasoning of the Saturnians, for example, will never truly manage to explain why he favored certain avenues of research (such interests) rather than others.

Notes:

▶ (1) “Who lacks sincerity and naturalness” (Robert 1976).
▶ (2,3,4) Dictionnaire de philosophie, Bordas 1983.
▶ (5) “Astro-notes” by J.-P. Nicola in the C. C. No. 16.
▶ (6) “Bilans Comparés”, J.-P. Nicola, C. C. No. 1.
▶ (7) “born human”, Jacques Mehler and Emmanuel Dupoux, Ed. Odile Jacob, 1990.
▶ (8) In No. 4 of Astrologie Pratique, page 58, the theorist of the affectivity of the “R” shows that he is not unaware of these recent researches and discoveries, since he evokes the “proto-representations”, “implicit knowledge” and “internal repositories” constituents of the 1st year… This does not prevent him from maintaining his equivalence ‘R’ = affectivity = personal affinities = subjectivity at the cost of acrobatic semantic pirouettes and subtle linguistic contortions. An attitude imbued with “dissonance”… Is it affectivity, a subjective personal affinity that prompted Einstein, born under a Sun-Mercury conjunction at the MC, to formulate his unitary theory of the physical world? It did indeed function according to a scheme of “prior unit”, since he considered that “God doesn’t play dice”, and therefore that the cosmos is a priori “sensible”, “readable” and “modeled”, in short, ‘R’. With the S.O.R.I., it is nevertheless easy to understand this phenomenon: any planet and any family R.E.T. can work within the framework of each of the four frames of reference Subject, Object, Relation, Integration. Subjectivity is therefore not the prerogative of the level ‘R’. As an indication, an ‘R’ affirming that the Earth revolves around the Sun is much more objective than an ‘E’ testifying to the opposite because of his personal experience. Einstein was an Object and/or Relationship ‘R’ level. No subjectivity in his scientific approach. No affectivity either, unless we postulate that “e = love these two” (from Mercury, with love).

Article published in issue No. 17 of the Cahiers conditionalistes (1st semester 1991).

In this article I have critiqued the theory, developed by ex-conditionalist astrologer Bernard Blanchet, that the three planetary functions (Sun, Mercury, Venus) belonging to the “extensive R” (or “big R”) of the R.E.T. would have in common a so-called “affectivity”. Since this does not seem clear to some, I suggest that, as additional information, you read large extracts from a “astro note” that Jean-Pierre Nicola wrote on this subject in November 1990. The following text is from him:

The point of view of Jean-Pierre Nicola

[…] I owe to Jacques Van Rillaer the satisfaction of a simple reading on the “various types of scientificity”. I quote it:

“Three groups of disciplines can be distinguished: the formal sciences (logic and abstract mathematics); the empirical and experimental sciences, whose model is physics; the hermeneutical sciences, whose prototype is History.
▶ a) The former have procedures that allow their statements to be evaluated without ambiguity.
▶ b) The latter attempt to explore and explain empirical realities. Unlike the previous ones, their proposals must be confronted with experience and are only accepted after confirmation by empirical evidence.
▶ c) The third set of disciplines has been called, according to the times, sciences of the mind, moral sciences, ideographic sciences (which describe individual particularities — as opposed to the ‘nomothemic’ sciences, which lay down laws), descriptive sciences, comprehensive, interpretative, hermeneutical, semiological…”

This is a masterful text. For conditionalist astrology everything is said in a) and b), while traditional or astro-psychological astrology goes from c) to b), from b) to c) by stepping over a).

Conditionalism has a formal logic: R.E.T., S.O.R.I., Theory of ages, reflexological zodiac, theory of aspects. He has, condition a), procedures that allow his statements to be evaluated without ambiguity. The conditionalists who really know the definitions of the zodiac, of the R.E.T., of the S.O.R.I., purified of any amalgamation with astro-psychoanalysis, are capable, without a telepath, of giving with the same formula (R/f+, Subject, in U.P. phase for example), without consulting each other, the same portrait, except for differences in style. Conversely, from the same portrait, those who know the conditionalist axiom can, without consulting each other, express its formula. The strength of conditionalism is in a)… An ‘a’ like Antoine, Alfred, Auguste, the analogists would say.

This acquisition of a Logoscope, assessment of forty years, comes from a methodical reflection on the data of astrology and no longer depends on it. By this I mean that one can adopt its concepts and their practice without any reference to horoscopes. The Logoscope, freed from the horoscope, can prove itself without it. This is what made me say that there was, underlying astrology, a superior dimension which contained it. Operation b) which requires other tools (valuation grids in particular) consists of experimentally measuring the percentage of correlation between the axiomatic a) (which I call Logoscope) and the birth sky. It is certainly not 90%, and if it rises, being optimistic, to 70%, this does not mean that axiomatic a) must be corrected by 30%. Conclude:

1) that the relationship between theory and practice is not quantitative but qualitative;

2) that the Conditionalist Logoscope constitutes a system independent of astrology, capable of evolving through applications other than the horoscope.

The autonomy of the Logoscope requires preserving the rigor and coherence of its concepts. However, for some time now a rumor has been rising: the ‘R’ is emotional. About a chart with a Mercury-Venus-Saturn cluster (in close conjunction), Sun… I read that the “big R” level (Mercury, Venus, Sun) corresponded to a “urgent need of affection” […].

Do not confuse a) and b). In the axiomatics of the R.E.T., the “big R” brings together, by definition, three planets which have a common denominator… the “R”, precisely. Is it affectivity that is common to Sun, Venus, Mercury? No. Read, reread the typological portraits, from Ptolemy to Dr Brétéché, you will judge better for yourself if the common trait of these three stars is affectivity or sensitivity to the image, to appearance. You will judge whether the need to be seen, to be an interesting image yourself, and to be on TV, is not stronger than the need to be loved. A different need.

The same common denominator rule applied to the other extensive or intensive families restores the coherence and unity of the R.E.T. The introduction of affectivity into the ‘R’ group breaks the rule of the common denominator and is foreign to the whole system. Those who believe that the “big R” is affective can either remove Mercury, or remake a planetary matrix on other (more affective) bases, or, finally, call the “R” something else.

In the solar system, the ‘R’ zone of the geocentric ternary division is the brightest since the luminous intensity decreases with distance, according to a 1/D² law. On Earth, the extension of the meanings of the ‘R’ gives the most obvious decoys, tropisms, signals essential to the most urgent plant, animal and human adaptations. I wish the reformers such a coherent matrix.

It is true that rigidity threatens rigor with sclerosis. The impeccable R.E.T. was built on the elimination of a flexibility of interpretation that is nothing less than human. But to leave the absolute and rediscover the relative, there is the Theory of Ages. Linked to the R.E.T., it is its fall into man, the avatar, the impure incarnation. Because, in our Logoscope, we must not confuse the solar phase of one year which follows the stages Moon, Mercury, Venus, with the definition ‘rR’ of the Sun. There is no age in the R.E.T., nor even any indication of a privileged order of succession, and that of the ‘R’, if one had to start with Mercury (as nothing indicates) is moreover not that of the first year of age. Finally, the chart of the first return of a star (chart of the first harmonic) is composite: the other planets participate in it through absent or different harmonics.

We can talk about the affectivity of the one-year-old child, but is this really what characterizes this phase… from the solar point of view? As for the need to be loved… at his last breath, the man still calls his mother.

As for the supporting references: I formulated the Theory of Ages in 1962, as a Sumerian astrologer, agricultural on his ziggurat, without worrying about Piaget, Walloon, Lacan, of whom I knew absolutely nothing, and worrying like a figment of the Freudian stadiums… Knowing what Barbault had done with it, it was better not to deal with it. As Van Rillaer would say, it is dangerous to put an attempt to explain astrology and the understanding of the phases of maturation behind psychoanalytic fantasies. For my part, I prefer practical observations with as little hermeneutics as possible. After a short hesitation between the Earth and the Sun, what made me decide to retain the Sun as a signifier for the stage of one year, comes from a simple and clear work: “L’enfance et l’adolescence” by J. A. Hadfield (Payot library). I quote:

“Desire to stand out and attract attention. Most parents will have noticed that, around the age of one, children love drawing attention to themselves. Sitting in his stroller, he calls out to passers-by and calls all the men ‘Dad-dad’. He is jealous of the interest that we take in others and, if we pet the dog, the cat or another child in his presence, he immediately manages to put himself forward… even if, for a few minutes earlier, he was peacefully playing on the floor…”

According to the Lacanians, it should rather say: “Ma-ma, pass me your mirror, so we can see each other”, but Hadfield is not one to rack his brains in the depths or offer lollipops to little children so that they say “Mom”. In fact, we can very well say “Ma-ma” or “Dad” according to the consensus, that is to say, what parents expect of an era. And, quoting Hadfield again:

“Development. If the main function of this phase (one year) is to ensure security, it also has the secondary consequence of developing social contacts; for, in his efforts to attract the attention of others, the child becomes aware of what pleases them and what displeases them. He practices doing what they approve of, and avoids what they disapprove of. Here we find one of the most remote sources of the behavior social in the child.”

You read correctly “social”… one of the consequences of “big R” in the desire to be seen, and well seen. The search for approval is more explicit, more solar, than affectivity… a general term, often indefinite. The affectivity of little Larousse: “set of affective phenomena (emotions, feelings, passions, etc.)”, would bring us closer to the “small e”… provided you understand the families of the R.E.T. comparatively, otherwise everything is affective. […] If you do not understand that the Sun is also a “small r” unrelated to affectivity, if not to manipulate approval or disapproval, no need to use R.E.T. and Theory of Ages. Astro-psychoanalysis reaches out to you. […].

Jean-Pierre Nicola, November 1990.

---

---

  Next article — Sun-Pluto, a special couple