Cactus
Well-known member
I am wondering why astrologers who use Declinations don't use parallels of latitude.
For instance, say Uranus is parallel/conjunct TWO angles and makes many close aspects to personal planets. It's conjunct the descendant and parallel the MC. Let's say it is also parallel in latitude to Mercury and Jupiter which are not angular.
Am I correct in thinking that Uranus P in latitude Mercury and Jupiter would be effective since Uranus is exceptionally strong, being conjunct/parallel two angles?
I have other examples that are making me look carefully at parallels of latitude where there aren't P of declination. It would be nice to get extra support or direction from those who consider the latitude parallels.
Is there any criteria for parallels in latitude to be effective (for those who use them)?
[deleted request for specific forum member - Moderator Note: please keep Forum postings general and open for all to respond]
For instance, say Uranus is parallel/conjunct TWO angles and makes many close aspects to personal planets. It's conjunct the descendant and parallel the MC. Let's say it is also parallel in latitude to Mercury and Jupiter which are not angular.
Am I correct in thinking that Uranus P in latitude Mercury and Jupiter would be effective since Uranus is exceptionally strong, being conjunct/parallel two angles?
I have other examples that are making me look carefully at parallels of latitude where there aren't P of declination. It would be nice to get extra support or direction from those who consider the latitude parallels.
Is there any criteria for parallels in latitude to be effective (for those who use them)?
[deleted request for specific forum member - Moderator Note: please keep Forum postings general and open for all to respond]
Last edited by a moderator: