|
Source: e-mailing Kt, begin
2002
l) For the Part of Fortune (ASC +/- Moon -/+ Sun) (and
the other Arabic points). How must I compute it in declination?
Is this point by definition on the ecliptic as is the
ASC and MC?(Luc)
An interesting question and again deserving of a whole
small book. The Part of Fortune as we normally calculate
it is often not very effective at all because it may
really tie in with the chart because without taking
into account the declination of the planets involved
in the formulation of the Part it may be positiones
in a degree of longitude that really makes no valid
or potent aspects at all. In order to pin that point
down you may calculate the longitudinal Part and then
find its equivalent declination degree. OR you may make
the conversion of the declination of the planets involved
to their true longitude and produce a more potent Part
of fortune that way. Kt
m) I'm now thoroughly studying the psychological effects
of the OOB body's. When I'm reading your book (Cycles
& Psychological patterns of the OOB planets) I find
fascinating and interesting explanations about OOB Moons.
These examples are rather negative expressions of the
OOB Moon condition (the stepchildren of the zodiac,
etc....). What are positive expressions of the OOB Moon
(the normal definition of OOB is "beyond normal conditions
of expectations", that can be good, that can be bad)?
I think we don't may associate The OOB Moon only with
alienation from the mother. How must I see these matters?
(Luc)
Truthfully, the relationship to the mother is most often
in the eye of the beholder (in other words, created
by the child's perception of the mother rather than
founded on any factual concepts.) As I explained in
an earlier post IF there are other planets or asteroids
simultaneously OOB at birth that nullifies the reading
of the OOB Moon as given above. And in such a case,
the reading will be entirely different. Kt
n) In your book you talk on page 35 (in The
chapter about The declination chart) in the fourth paragraph,
about 6 specific points; I find only five: 1) the longitude
2) and his anti-scia 3) the declination 4) in conversion
the longitude equivalent 5) and the co-declination (anti-scia).
What is the sixth? (Luc)
The six points that I refer to here are: 1. the given
longitude 2. the given declination 3. the equivalent
longitude for the given declination and 4. its solstice
point 5. the equivalent declination for the given longitude
and 6, its solstice point. Kt
o) In the above mentioned articles the most
astrologers don't speak about conversions, with the
exception of Leigh, who wrote that article with the
title: "Declination in the round chart, a different
dimension of insight". How must I interprete these facts?
Perhaps these astrologers don't know this conversions
(I can't believe that astrologers writing in an issue
special about declinations don't know it), or they don't
use it, and this because the software programs don't
give these conversions (except Halloran's) and than
it takes more work to count it , or because they don't
need it.... Do you understand my question here, and
can you clarify? (Luc)
You are right, Luc. My work on declination is unique
- Jayne never really understood declination and never
made the conversion from declination to longitude and
vice versa. No one did, in fact, so when you get into
my work the only author who understands it thoroughly
is Leigh Westin. Do not try to apply what Jayne said
to my work with planets in declination - he didn't have
the remotest idea of what was going on or what happened
there. Sorry about that but that is the way it is. Astrology
like everything else is NOT written in stone - there
is much to be learned yet and many errors of the past
that need to be identified and deleted. The Halloran
program is the only computer program that comes near
to the correct presentation of declination and the conversion
of declination. Kt I hope this helps, Luc. The most
important thing for you and all other astrologers to
recognize is that the astrologers who went before us
were not possessed of the information and understanding
of the astronomical knowledge and understanding that
we have now. Its like ancient (and not so ancient) doctors
who didn't know about DNA and the doctors who now work
with DNA every day. Do you see what I mean? When I wrote
my book in 1994 (had been writing and working on it
since the very early '70s) no one else had dreamed of
the understanding that I had arrived at. And there is
still so much research that needs to be done with it.
Astrology is a very inexact science in the hands of
most astrologers (surgery used to be a very inexact
science in the hands of all doctors but now it is incredibly
more exact than ever before in the history of mankind)
but with declination correctly understood and converted
astrologers can be incredibly more exact than ever before.
DO NOT let the ignorance of the past limit the acquisition
and use of current and more accurate information and
techniques!
p) I have another question: in your book, I
find something about it p 32, ...(title = Latitude )
also a little bit astronomical, but very important too
(I guess): how do you relate longitude, latitude and
declination. I know we speak here about to coordination
systems. The one equatorial system with declination
and right ascension; the other ecliptic system with
(celestial) longitude and (celestial) latitude. I understand
we can work with longitude and declination together
(and thus mixing two coordination systems), because
that's the way what we experience as earth, travelling
around the sun (longitude) and the obliquity of the
earth, what give us the declination, seasons, solstice
points, antiscia, etc ...and we experience both measures
on the same moment in one and the same experience...
And then we have celestial latitude, all planets of
the solar system travel within a narrow band of 8° above
or under the ecliptic (except the very eccentric Pluto,
and also the eccentric asteroïds) ; do we have to sum
up latitude and declination to define of a planet is
really OOB or not? If so, than is looking for declination
not enough, and we always have to consider the latitude
of the planet.... If we had to sum up latitude and declination
than a planet with f.e. a declination of 25°N15', can
lose his status of OOB, when the planet has a latitude
South of more than (25°N15' minus 23°26-28')?? A planet
can be off-the-ecliptic (by latitude) but not OOB (in
the meaning of a declination above 23°26-28'). In that
case you speak about: 'more than should be expected
within normal limitations and conditions'. In the case
of OOB you speak about 'beyond normal conditions or
expectations': is it a question of gradation or not?(Luc)
When a planet's declination is calculated, its latitude
is taken into account in the process so there is no
reason to be concerned about the any adjustment of a
planet's declination because of its latitude. The only
latitude that is of importance (and there are several
different types of latitude -have forgotten the classifications
right now) is the latitude that is given for planets
north or south of the Ecliptic which may occasionally
place a planet that is within the 23N/S28 maximum ecliptic
limit declination OUTSIDE the ecliptic while NOT OUT
OF BOUNDS. It will never move an OOB planet inside the
ecliptic limit. This means that we occasionally have
a planet that is outside the ecliptic but NOT outside
the Ecliptic maximum declination - these planets are
very individualistic in their influence - indicating
traits and/or characteristics and/or events that are
unusual but NOT completely outside the realm of reason
(if you see what I mean!) I have written about that
in my book, too. Kt
Vervolg:
|
You are here