The interpretation examples that we are suggesting are very far from being exhaustive: they only show and outline a general frame describing the issues of the planetary family. They should therefore not be taken literally. Each being brings indeed its own responses, more or less original, to the questions raised by a planetary family. There is no magic formula. Through using the R.E.T. and of the Theory of Ages and combining logic, observation and imagination, you will be able to develop a thousand other possible meanings, a thousand other variations on the same theme.
Reduce to questions, perplexities, hypotheses, speculations, doubts, hidden laws, mysteries, nonsense, absurdities, uncertain or unpublished perspectives (‘t’), the set of standards, codes, concepts, theories, models, goals, projects, images, principles, symbols (‘R’), concrete and observable facts and phenomena (‘E’) and abstract, subtle, invisible or complex realities (‘T’).
Positive formula (‘t’ ou “small t” or “Intensive T”): dissect and probe words and theories, sensations and experiences, mysteries and subtleties to discover their invisible cogs or profound absurdities. Being intensely skeptical of all the patterns, facts, and puzzles with which reality is populated. Always suspect that part of the information is missing, that the most established certainties and the most concrete realities can be questioned or clarified differently. Investigate, investigate, track down the traces of tenuous clues that put on the trail of something other than what we believe, see and feel. Search in all things for the missing element, the flaw in the breastplate, the grain of sand that can upset the most efficient and best machines.
Negative formula (“non-r, non-e” or lack of Intensive representation and intensive existence): lack or rejection of overt authority and affective sensoriality. Principles and affectivity are broken down. Hence the excesses ‘t’: systematic criticism, paranoia of suspicion and conspiracy, crumbling of thoughts into absolute abstraction, dark ideas, dramatization of the absurd or nonsense.
There are words which are immediately so loaded with meaning and various connotations that they run the risk of masking or betraying the thing they designate rather than illuminating it, revealing it. Word “Transcendence” is one of those. Evoking a mysterious dimension of the universe, it also flirts with metaphysics and the divine, and thus finds itself exposed to all sorts of more or less arbitrary or fantastical projections. Let us therefore specify the definition that we give to this word: it is quite simply that of the Little Larousse : “Character of that which lies beyond the reach of human experience and thought.”
Note that this definition is privative or negative: Transcendence is not described there as what it is, but as what it is not. The “This” that designates it is vast and vague enough to allow us to imagine multiple forms and faces of Transcendence, while the expression “out of reach” emphasizes that this level of reality does not pertain to the world of sensible phenomena (“experience”), nor that of our mental representations (“man’s thought”).
Each level and each function of the R.E.T system defines itself both by what it is and by what it is not. We will come back to this essential characteristic later in a systematic and thorough way but, from now on, we can apply this rule to the plutonian function. Its positive formula is “Transcendence of Transcendence”, which implies, for its negative formula, that it is neither “representation of Representation”, neither “existence of Existence”. The total formula (positive and negative) of Pluto is therefore “tT non-rR non-rE”, which can be reduced to: “Transcendence non-Existence non-Representation”). Leaving aside the positive formula, we get the following negative definition of the Plutonian function: “Character of what is neither of existence nor of representation.” Compare this formula with the dictionary definition of transcendence: “Character of that which is situated (‘tT’) beyond the reach of the experience (‘not-E’) and of the thought (‘not-R’) of man”. They are practically identical, which is not surprising, since the Plutonian function, in negative feedback, concerns the maintenance and self-preservation of Transcendence… QED.
The believer and the unbeliever can give a different content to Transcendence. The first tends to oppose the Transcendence of the divine to the Immanence of Man and the world. The most radical spiritualists believe that only the divine Transcendence is real, our concrete existences and our representations being only illusions. Believers who are more measured — and therefore more learned — think that two types of Transcendence coexist: the first relates to the presence of a divine dimension in the universe, while the second, consubstantial with immanence (= “That which belongs to the domain of experience and thought”), comes from the permanence in nature of an unknown dimension that does not come from the divine. The agnostic, the atheist or the materialist have other points of view. Agnosticism, atheism and the materialism are three philosophical conceptions that should not be confused, despite the classic — and misleading — spiritualism-materialism opposition. The agnostic estimate that “the absolute is inaccessible to the human mind and professes complete ignorance touching the intimate nature, the origin and the destiny of things” ; the atheist “denies the existence of God, of divinity” ; finally, the materialist “says that nothing exists outside of matter, and that mind itself is entirely material”.
From the perspective of these three varieties of unbelievers, therefore, Transcendence has no divine or spiritual content. For the agnostic, it merges with the unknowable and inexperienced absolute, and thus falls under a mystery so thick that it is impenetrable, a perfect illustration of the Plutonian function. “Transcendence of Transcendence” : maintenance and self-preservation of the unknown which delivers nothing other than itself. For the atheist and the materialist, Transcendence represents all the physical laws of nature that have not yet been discovered, including those that may never be.
The philosophical position closest to that of natural astrology is that of agnosticism when the latter does not confuse the unknown with the unknowable: something can always come out of the unknown, whereas the unknowable is homeostatic, closed in on itself. Indeed, it is by no means necessary to believe in any divine dimension to try to approach and understand the relationship between Man on Earth and the solar system. But everyone is free to believe or not to believe: this is a matter of an intimate bet, of a rationally and experimentally undemonstrable personal conviction.
Why this long preamble on the various ways of apprehending Transcendence? Simply in order to “clear the ground”. Too many astrologers, confusing Transcendence and divinity, lend the trans-Saturnian planets a spiritual dimension and tend to make of those in whom they are dominant metaphysical inspirations, prophets or mystics, which is not only very reductive, but most of the time false: there are as many agnostics, atheists and materialists among the beings strongly marked by Uranus-Neptune-Pluto as among the others. The spiritual dimension of a being, if it exists, is not registered or detectable in his natal chart.
With the “small t” of Mercury-Saturn-Pluto, there is convergence, polarization, focus on the level-goal “transcendence” : everything is a pretext to question oneself, to question, to imagine other possibilities, to formulate new hypotheses, to dig, to search, to deepen, to exercise one’s quest for an absolute or a hidden meaning. Whatever the level-source to which we refer, we perceive within it a lack, an emptiness, an insufficiency generating dissatisfaction and a spirit of research. To clearly understand the difference between small and “big T”, between “intensive transcendence” and “extensive transcendence”, let’s draw a parallel between two notions that seem very similar and yet are very different: the imagination And imagination.
Our dictionaries are full of definitions of the imaginary. Before giving ours, let’s name a few: “Which only exists in the mind, which does not correspond to reality”; “Product, realm of the imagination, of things created by the imagination”; “Fantastic, fabulous, unreal, legendary, mythical”. The opposition between the imaginary and the “real” is it relevant? Nothing is less obvious. When a being makes a discovery that upsets the knowledge acquired, initially it “exists only in his mind”, of course, and it is generally opposed and challenged by the representatives of knowledge in place who almost never hesitate to notice that this discovery “does not correspond to reality”. Take the example of the astronomer-astrologer Johannes Kepler, who discovered that planetary orbits do not describe perfect circles, as was believed for millennia before him, but ellipses. Many scholars of his time refused “his” ellipses, geometric figures “imperfect”, therefore unworthy of the perfect divine creation, to claim that they existed only in the imagination of Kepler, and therefore to affirm that they were not “real”. In fact, it was Kepler’s imaginary which was in the real, a new real fruit of the imaginary, whereas the “real” of his opponents was only a misrepresentation of astronomical reality. Conclusion: this “which exists only in the mind” at some point may very well “correspond to reality” which has not yet been discovered. A better positive definition of the imaginary would therefore be “That which first exists only in the mind and which may later turn out to be real or unreal”.
The imaginary is also, according to another dictionary definition, the “product, realm of the imagination”. The imagination would therefore be in this case the cause, the creative element of the imaginary, and the imaginary the effect, the created element. Like any creation, the imaginary would therefore have autonomy, its own operating logic, independent of the imagination that created it. In this sense, the world of the imaginary cannot be confused with that of the imagination… which it is now time to define precisely. The different definitions of imagination distinguish reproductive imagination, which is the “ability of the mind to represent images” And “to conjure up images of objects that we have already seen” and the creative imagination, which is the “ability to form images of objects that have not been perceived or to make new combinations of images”, of “create, invent, design by combining ideas”. From an astrological point of view, the reproductive imagination corresponds electively to the “intensive r” (Sun-Jupiter-Uranus) for its ability to “represent images” and at “extensive E” (Mars-Jupiter-Saturn) for his interest in “objects already perceived”. The creative imagination would then return to the “extensive R” (Sun-Mercury-Venus) for the “new combinations of images” and the “intensive t” for the ability to “create, invent by combining ideas”.
If the “big T” is the domain of the prospective imagination, the “little t” is that of creative imagination. With the prospective imagination of the “big T”, we are rich in a whole fabric of imaginations that interconnect freely and give birth to new ways of acting or thinking… or delirious. With the creative imagination of the “little t”, we base ourselves on the different levels-sources of reality to formulate new hypotheses, discover realities that are still unknown… or perfectly imaginary. With the mercurian function ‘tR’ (“transcendence of Representation”), we seek to discover or imagine the general idea or ideas that are hidden in the slightest image, the slightest word, the slightest clue, the slightest sign; with the saturnian function ‘tE’ (“transcendence of Existence”), we extrapolate from the lived, the felt, the experience that we break down to try to understand the invisible mechanisms of operation, the universal laws; with the plutonian function ‘tT’ (“transcendence of Transcendence”) is the unknown itself that we drill through to try to imagine what it is made of, what possibilities it contains. Mercury imagines from words, images or appearances, Saturn from facts, phenomena or concrete situations, Pluto from the unknown, from pure intuition, from the imagination. In all things we are looking for an elsewhere, a transformation, a transmutation, a metamorphosis.
Intensive transcendence allows us never to be satisfied with a definition or a state of affairs and invites us to always look further, to question, criticize or deepen the knowledge acquired or conquered, the experiences and sensations that seem seemingly unmistakable. She invites us to never forget that “every knowledge function is a misknowledge function” (J. Lacan): what we know with certainty, what we have learned, the little light that we have thus projected on beings and things must never lead us to ignore all the shadow that surrounds this light; also not to forget that “I feel it, therefore I am wrong” (H. Laborit): if we must know how to distance ourselves from our deceptively simple representations-conceptions (Mercury ‘tR’), we must also consider our sensations-perceptions with a certain distance (Saturn ‘tE’) so as not to be trapped by them when, for example, the testimony of our senses makes us believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, when in reality it is the opposite that occurs…
When Mercury, Saturn and Pluto dominate in the chart of an individual, this one is characterized by a critical spirit, cold, calculating, imaginative, skeptical, gifted for the speculations, the development of multiple hypotheses, strongly interested in what happens behind the scenes, behind the scenes, by what others ignore or pretend to ignore, hide, keep quiet, underestimate, minimize. His ever-vigilant critical spirit is constantly looking for flaws, insufficiencies, faults in armor, lice in the head, the little beast, the other side of the coin: it does not take him long to detect and take advantage, with relevance and impertinence, bad wording, ambiguous reasoning, an overlooked detail or a word with double or triple meaning. Impertinent, caustic, disturbing or mute, always ready to consider the most complex scenarios, he abhors reductive explanations, simplistic assertions and established certainties, just like the lack of lucidity to which naive sentimentality, excessive of “good heart” and epidermal reactions. Nothing ever seems clear, limpid, obvious to him: behind the noblest intentions he always suspects the hidden existence—real or supposed—of dark designs or unsavory ulterior motives. If he does not pour into irony, denial, doubt and systematic sarcasm, he willingly plays the box of absurd fantasy, unbridled nonsense, desacralizing slapstick: the essential in his eyes is to take nothing seriously, neither himself nor the rest of the world. Worried and disturbing, tormented and tormenting, iconoclastic and disturbing, cultivating caustic lucidity and/or dark humour, he lives in a state of perpetual research and chronic dissatisfaction, as if nothing could ever quench his intense thirst for the unknown, novelty, new perspectives.
In one way or another, he feels estranged from the common purpose, on the margins of accepted opinions, in contradiction with official truths. Cultivating distance and hindsight, he intends to preserve complete freedom to think as he wishes, to change his mind when he deems it necessary, even to cultivate in himself contradictory points of view, the only ones able to eyes to account for the complexity and diversity of reality. He does not mind preaching the false in order to know the true, confusing his interlocutors by answering the questions they ask with other questions, even pushing reasoning to the point of absurdity in order to demonstrate the absurdity itself. of pretending to reason. Prevent thinking in circles? Yes, but as Léo Ferré sang, “men who think in circles have curved ideas” : through the zigzags of his often tortuous thoughts, he is secretly in search of straight ideas!
▶ The Mercurian: Psychological profile
▶ The mercurian function ‘tR’ (transcendence of Representation)
▶ Mercurian stage (from 1 to 3 months old): the age of communication
▶ Sun-Mercury-Venus: extensive Representation
▶ L’Esprit Mercure de C.G. Jung : une leçon de symbolisme
▶ The Saturnian: Psychological profile
▶ The saturnian function ‘tE’ (transcendence of Existence)
▶ Saturnian stage (from 12 to 30 years old): the age of questioning
▶ Mars-Jupiter-Saturn: extensive Existence
▶ The Plutonian: Psychological profile
▶ The plutonian function ‘tT’ (transcendence of Transcendence)
▶ Uranian stage (from 30 to 84 years old): the age of individualization
▶ Plutonian stage (from 164 to 248 years old): the age of disappearance
▶ Uranus-Neptune-Pluto: extensive Transcendence
▶ Mercury-Saturn aspect
▶ Mercury-Pluto aspect
▶ Saturn-Pluto aspect
Les significations planétaires
620 pages. Illustrations en couleur.
La décision de ne traiter dans ce livre que des significations planétaires ne repose pas sur une sous-estimation du rôle des Signes du zodiaque et des Maisons. Le traditionnel trio Planètes-Zodiaque-Maisons est en effet l’expression d’une structure qui classe ces trois plans selon leur ordre de préséance et dans ce triptyque hiérarchisé, les Planètes occupent le premier rang.
La première partie de ce livre rassemble donc, sous une forme abondamment illustrée de schémas pédagogiques et tableaux explicatifs, une édition originale revue, augmentée et actualisée des textes consacrés aux significations planétaires telles qu’elles ont été définies par l’astrologie conditionaliste et une présentation détaillée des méthodes de hiérarchisation planétaire et d’interprétation accompagnées de nombreux exemples concrets illustrés par des Thèmes de célébrités.
La deuxième partie est consacrée, d’une part à une présentation critique des fondements traditionnels des significations planétaires, d’autre part à une présentation des rapports entre signaux et symboles, astrologie et psychologie. Enfin, la troisième partie présente brièvement les racines astrométriques des significations planétaires… et propose une voie de sortie de l’astrologie pour accéder à une plus vaste dimension noologique et spirituelle qui la prolonge et la contient.
Téléchargez-le dès maintenant dans notre boutique
Pluton planète naine : une erreur géante
117 pages. Illustrations en couleur.
Pluton ne fait plus partie des planètes majeures de notre système solaire : telle est la décision prise par une infime minorité d’astronomes lors de l’Assemblée Générale de l’Union Astronomique Internationale qui s’est tenue à Prague en août 2006. Elle est reléguée au rang de “planète naine”, au même titre que les nombreux astres découverts au-delà de son orbite.
Ce livre récapitule et analyse en détail le pourquoi et le comment de cette incroyable et irrationnelle décision contestée par de très nombreux astronomes de premier plan. Quelles sont les effets de cette “nanification” de Pluton sur son statut astrologique ? Faut-il remettre en question son influence et ses significations astro-psychologiques qui semblaient avérées depuis sa découverte en 1930 ? Les “plutoniens” ont-ils cessé d’exister depuis cette décision charlatanesque ? Ce livre pose également le problème des astres transplutoniens nouvellement découverts. Quel statut astrologique et quelles influences et significations précises leur accorder ?
Enfin, cet ouvrage propose une vision unitaire du système solaire qui démontre, chiffes et arguments rationnels à l’appui, que Pluton en est toujours un élément essentiel, ce qui est loin d’être le cas pour les autres astres au-delà de son orbite. Après avoir lu ce livre, vous saurez quoi répondre à ceux qui pensent avoir trouvé, avec l’exclusion de Pluton du cortège planétaire traditionnel, un nouvel argument contre l’astrologie !
Téléchargez-le dès maintenant dans notre boutique