posted September 24, 2020 02:12 PM
I'll respond here to the first article first. Much of the explanation in it is spot-on. So I'll only respond if I disagree or if more clarification is needed.
Quoting the author, Bette Denlinger ...
So if you have two natal planets with a semi-sextile and they are also parallel , this semi-sextile will be more intense. Rather than ignore this as a minor aspect you may wish to emphasize this in an interpretation. If you plot this aspect by declination longitudinal equivalents and insert them into a Denlinger Declination Chart you will be able to see the energy more readily.
This skews the dynamic of the aspects. It is not this 'minor' semi-sextile aspect that creates the emphasis, but the parallel. It is the dominant aspect. So the intensity is there, not transferred to the semi-sextile, which has a particular dynamic of its own that can never have the intensity or fusion of a parallel (or conjunction).
In general, articles like this need plenty of illustrations so that the concept of declinations can be absorbed. I have such a Declinations article on my website linked in my signature.
The author gives the proper amount of emphasis to OOBs (out of bounds planets), only a short paragraph. Much more is needed to understand declinations. Grasping at OOB because it is easier will hamper your understanding. It's a small portion of the overall declinations dynamics.
When I get to the section in the first article labeled Longitudinal Equivalents or L.E.'s the information is confusing and in dire need of visual illustrations.
It is important to note that there are no standard longitudinal equivalents for the declinations that apply in all charts or all planetary motions because no planets follow the ecliptic exactl, except for house cusps and Sun. Those are always exactly on the ecliptic. The equivalents of longitude referred to here must be made by using the actual declination position of a specific natal chart's planets.
I will insert an image here from my own Declinations page to illustrate the two points of Longitudinal equivalents where the author equates a single planet's declination to two points in space (longitude):
So you can see that there aren't longitudinal equivalent degrees, but degree areas. When cusp or Sun is moving northward at the end of Taurus and entering Gemini its declination is at 20° north, just as it is when it starts moving southward again at the end of Cancer/beginning of Leo. This line that can be drawn between those points is what the author is referring to in this section of the article:
That line will cross the chart wheel boundaries at TWO places.
THIS is what the author means by L.E., not tropical sign position or dignity.
The introduction of seasons in the section, Points of Interest, is irrelevant and clouds matters. Ignore it. The only thing that matters with declinations is understanding that Sun, cusps, and planets move northward from their southern low point in Sag/Cap, pass 0° declination as they move northward through Aries and continue northward to end of Gemini/beginning of Cancer where they begin moving southward again. Only Moon and Pluto are exceptions to this: Moon because it is irregular with maximum declination varying in the Solilunar cycle (from 18 - 28°); Pluto because its 'plane' of orb is well off the ecliptic and can still be in far declination in Leo and Aquarius.
The basic thrust of Kt Boehrer's book is that not only is the planet vibrating at its natal place by conventional longitude, but also the energy is active at the l.e. points due to declinational activity. However, a chart with both the planets and their l.e.'s included will be overwhelming in complexity since you would have over 30 points to view.
I can see it is time that I got a copy of Boehrer's book. I learned declinations on my own through direct study of charts, transits, and progressions with a start from the information given by John Willner in his books and from his protege Fred Bickum.
However, this brings up something important, the complexity of introducing all these lines on the conventional flat wheel chart. You might as well learn to shift to a separate declinations table when viewing declination positions for each planet and learn to integrate that with the planets' position by zodiac. It's no more complicated in my opinion. Yes, it would be good to integrate all the declination information onto a natal chart, but it holds the same problem as attempting to include all the asteroids on the flat wheel chart a person thinks might be relevent. There is a visual maximum of information that can be absorbed for a specific, limited space.
But we don't have to have her book to see what KT Boehrer was doing in converting declination to longitudinal equivalents. You can do it yourself here with this tool:http://www.astrologyweekly.com/declination/
For example, I just entered a declination of 18°00' north:
It spits out two minute-specific locations in longitude. This is backwards from how declinations actually work and how they should be understood. Because the declination of a planet changes more slowly a planet at 18N00 moves more quickly through longitudinal degrees (mid-late Taurus & early-mid Leo, depending on the planet), that specific declination cannot be so specifically pinned to a degree and minute of arc, but a degree and minute or longitude position DOES correlate to a very specific declination position, but only for cusps and the Sun!
What Boehrer is claiming is that there is energy correlation to these fixed longitudinal equivalent spots. I've been working with declinations in a highly specific manner for well over a decade and I have seen no evidence for this. Just because a planet transits the L.E. spot does not necessarily mean it is in transit to the planet in question. It must be an actual aspect happening, either in longitude or declination. L.E. here is the justification for a declination point being equated to a standard longitude point or points no matter the planet or where it actually is in longitude. It's a shortcut to really learning declinations. It was hard, it took time for me to learn declinations, but it is possible without shortcuts that give misleading information.
By clicking on the Denlinger Declination chart link you can see the following image, which perpetuates this:
It IS useful to see that a planet at 16N48 declination can get transited by a planet at around 13° Taurus or 16-17° Leo, but these should not be made fixed equivalencies. They are mere parts of learning declinations and being alerted to patterns so you become a more observant astrologer.
I'll see if the second article warrants any further commentary, and if so make a separate post.
Soul Stars Astrology by The Declinations Guy
Expert birth chart rectification