Declination and Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart

[glaucus]

What is your view about Declinations?

I had Robert Hand's Horoscope Symbols. In his book, he wrote that parallel and contraparallel aren't important unless they have corresponding conjunction and opposition in Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart.



In my Astrological Nativity:


Sun parallel 2002 MS4 - '01 Separating

Sun biseptile Orcus - '01 Separating
Sun contraparallel Orcus - '01 Separating

Sun contraparallel Pluto - '47 Separating

Pluto parallel Orcus - '47 applying

Pluto contraparallel 2002 MS4 - '48 applying

Orcus contraparallel 2002 MS4 - '01 applying


Mercury conjunct Venus - 3'27
Mercury parallel Venus - '14

Mercury quinqueundecile Saturn - '25 applying
Mercury contraparallel Saturn - '38 applying

Venus contraparallel Saturn - '52 applying

Venus parallel Neptune - '47 applying

Saturn oppose Neptune - 3'20 applying
Saturn contraparallel Neptune - '05 applying


I have Sun-MS4 parallel in contraparallel to Orcus-Pluto parallel, and I have Mercury-Venus-Neptune parallel in contraparallel to Saturn.



Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart Aspects:


Sun conjunct 2002 MS4 - '03 separating
Sun oppose Orcus - '02 separating
Orcus oppose 2002 MS4 - '02 applying


Mercury conjunct Venus - '54 separating
Mercury conjunct Neptune - 2'12 applying
Mercury oppose Saturn - 2'34 applying
Venus conjunct Neptune - 3'07 applying
Venus oppose Saturn - 3'28 applying
Saturn oppose Neptune - '21 applying

I have Sun-2002 MS4 conjunction in opposition to Orcus, and I have Mercury-Venus-Neptune conjunction in opposition to Saturn.

Sun contraparallel Pluto, Pluto parallel Orcus, and Pluto contraparallel 2002 MS4 don't have corresponding aspects in Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart.


Orcus is a transneptunian dwarf planet candidate and plutino named after Roman God of the Underworld. Its diameter is 917 km.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90482_Orcus


2002 MS4 is a transneptunian dwarf planet candidate and it is the second largest solar system object without a name after 2007 OR10. Its diameter is 934 km.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(307261)_2002_MS4

[lumina]

I`ve been toying around with those LE charts, too, but am just not too sure about them, mostly because it seems to me like we are mixing different things/ dimensions. 


I was coming across this post in a forum

"I bought Kt Boehrer's book on Declination Equivalent a few years ago because I thought transferring declination measurements to longitude zodiac measurements was really odd and wanted to follow her reasoning.



Declinations are the measurement of planets from the equator and zodiac longitude is the measurement of planets along the ecliptic - two very, very different things and I couldn't understand how she could make one fit the other, or even why she wanted to.



What she did was take the declination of the planet and then put it in the zodiac longitude of the position of the Sun if it was in the same declination.



Using an example from the position of Mars today:

Mars is at 6S58 declination and zodiac longitude of 24Libra09. KT would then check the zodiac longitude of the Sun at 6S58 declination and see that it was 17Libra47. She would then make this degree of zodiac longitude the longitude equivalent of Mars. She would do this for all the planets and then check out the aspects between them



Another example for today is Sun-Venus within a degree of declination but Venus is in Capricorn and the Sun is in Aquarius. With Kt's longitude equivalent system Venus would be at 16Aquarius11 and the Sun at 15Aquarius52. She would then work out longitude aspects to Venus from this position that are just imaginary.



To me this makes absolutely no sense at all! It just isn't real and I still can't understand why she wanted to do it, or why anyone would want to waste their time working with a system that isn't based on any form of reality.



Alice
"

noeltyl.com/discussion/index.php?topic=6386.0


I am actually not sure what my take here is, if I agree or not, maybe wouldn`t put it so harshly, but what was sticking with me was tjat thing about different methods of measurement. 

I will tentatively say that I would not put too much faith into those LE charts (though I know Charles Carter used them for determining the orb of parallels/ contraparallels, because he used a sliding scale of orbs, due to the difference in time that each planet stays at certain points at the declinations), but I am sure I can be convinced otherwise with good arguments. So I am actually on the fence about this. 

[lumina]

Also if planets are out of bounds, for the le, we have to take co-declinations, and that is something that is quite fishy too me.

[glaucus]

Yeah
Even though I am a regular user of Declination, I am not into using the Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart.
I definitely wouldn't use it to look for new aspects.
I'd use it to confirm the strength of aspects that I alread have in Declination like Robert Hand suggested in his book, Horoscope Symbols.