Lindaland
  Astrology For Beginners
  composite vs. davison (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   composite vs. davison
Bucketrider
unregistered
posted July 01, 2007 06:10 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ive just had a eureka moment Id like to share. After going back and forth bet which composite chart is more accurate, at first favoring the composite and then the davison for a while and then going back and feeling that the composite def has something important to say I think I have finally hit on where they fit.

The composite (midpoint chart) is basically an extension of synastry. It represents the midpoints between the two charts. Midpoints within a natal chart represent a blending of the two planets it is aspecting. The composite is a meeting place and exists as a contintuation of the aspects between the charts that occurs in synastry. It does not represent the true relationship as the "third" entity. The one that responds to tranists and progressions.
The davison chart is a more accurate representation of the real relationship as it is experienced by both parties, once they have really gotten past the beginning of it and have truly gotten to know one another. It is what nurtures or presents them with particular kinds of learning (working with particular dysfunctions and life enhancing "gifts") in the long run. It can be interacted with in a more responsive way than the composite chart. The composite emerges from the synastry and represents an overall feeling and some interactional dynamics between people. The davison goes beyond that and influences the real structure and nature of two people's interactions in the long term.

The davison resonates and is a more fixed entity. It was an actual day. In a similar way to the way progressions so accurately forecast periods of time for us, they are days, complete entities, stretched out and exprienced. Each day is its own creation and the order and structure of the planets is not random. The days, as they were created have particular significances. The davison, being the actual midpoint day between two people is a particular entity that was a real created potential that manifested at a point in time and continues to exist in a more latent form even after days pass. Its a deep mystical concept and one that coincides with the notion that time is an illusion and is not linear the way we think.
The composite chart is not a creation in the same way. The signs of a composite chart never felt significant to me. They are incidental. As are the house placements. As midpoint theory would suggest, its the aspects (conjunction, opp, square, trine, etc) that matter most. Those aspects have meaning in a composite relationship but only as they emerge from the synastry. They serve to draw people together and work in an immediate, instinctual way. As synastry does. Not that synastry is not ongoing and still relevant 15 years later. It is and so is the composite but neither tell the deeper story of the relationship between two people and the unique properties it has and will manifest in particular ways and areas via its aspects and house placements the way a davison can. In the end, I believe the davison is the bigger story.

That said, the orbs for a composite midpoint chart need to be much narrower to be felt while a davison chart would respond to more traditional orbs. Midpoint orbs are bet 1-3 degrees depending on the body being aspected. I would say the 1-3 orb should apply to a composite, being an expansion of the midpoint idea. The same essentially holds true for points like ASC, MC or vertex which respond to midpoint like orbs of probably not more than 3 degrees. These sensitive points are not actual bodies and do not exert an energy on another points or body, they merely exist and respond or receive an energy from something else. As opposed to a planet which is an actual body that emits of energy (or represents an emission -depending on how you want to look at it). That said, a planet opposing the ASC is dif than a planet opposing the sun. In kind of a yin/yang way, the sun yangs back to whatever is opposing it so there is tension. The ASC does not. Midpoints, as a composite chart would work the same way.

Any thoughts?

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 1212
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 01, 2007 08:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hi there ^_^ interesting research.. I've also thought about which method is actually better..

But personally, I would still give more emphasis on the composite. Let's say that our birth charts represents the potentials of what we are/can be. So presently, we somehow carry the energy of our birth charts. So when two person relate in the present, if their energies are equally expressed, then the energies would be balanced. In other words, the energies are "being in the midpoint".
But on the other hand, I still have some reservations about the composite method, coz in a couple, different planet energies might not be equally expressed from both sides. For example, one person can express his/her Mars energy more actively than the other person, so it might not be balanced (so the Mars energy between this couple might not be rightly represented by the midpoint between their Mars). The composite resembles the potential energy between two person together, when the energies are equally expressed, but the energies are not completely equally expressed.

As for the time importance, personally, I'd use progressed composite. ^_^

As for the points such as AC/DC/IC/MC, I see them as the filter of the energy of the planets - our way of expressing our planets' energies. ^_^
The houses of a chart depends on these four points, and they represent the places where we focus our energies at in our lives. Actually, there's a psychological link about our Ascendant, and in which sign/house a certain planet falls in. Let's say that for example, I have Aries Sun and Virgo Ascendant. My Arian self-expression is conditioned by Virgo. in other words, filtered by it. So astrologically speaking, I become an Aries that is more analytical and practical. That might turn me into a person that is eventually more interested in matters such as relationships, emotional security, joined resources, etc.. My Sun is actually at the 8th house. ^_^

Hope that I explained it well.. ^_^;

IP: Logged

alanabelle86
Knowflake

Posts: 88
From: somewhere over the rainbow
Registered: May 2009

posted July 01, 2007 08:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanabelle86     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great research!

Personally, I give far more weight to the Davison. Mainly because I can do more than just progress it. I like to do everything.

-Individual analysis
-synastry
-composite
-progressed composite
-davison
-marks charts
-progressed davison
-transits


The different research avenues of the composite are limited...or at least too limited for me. Everyone's different

------------------
Sagittarius AC, Sun in Scorpio, Moon in Leo

IP: Logged

Bucketrider
unregistered
posted July 01, 2007 09:18 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Comica,

I agree with your point about expressing the energy of the composite chart, be it a davison or midpoint comp, whichever partner is stronger in that energy will likely resonate with it and express it. I think composite midpoint charts are very useful but I dont think they respond to progressions or house placements. They may respond to transits in a more subtle way than the davison. I have looked at several dozen composite charts analyzing the sign and house placements for davison and composite. The davison won out by far in terms of how the relationship felt. The dif can really be seen with house placement. Often, they are both saying something pretty similar with regard to how the planets aspect each other. Although often sun conjunct saturn in the davison will be sun opposition saturn in the composite. House placement and signs are often opposite or just dif.

I think its important to understand midpoint theory here which comes out of cosmobiology and uranian approaches. The notion within a natal chart is that the midpoints blend both planets so that a trigger to the midpoint by another party will excite both those planets. The orb is very narrow for this to work. The sun/moon midpoint within a natal chart is often triggered by a sig other's sun or moon in hard aspect to that midpoint. When the orb is wider than 3 degrees it does not really work. Ive seen almost every couple/marriage Ive checked with this aspect and the orb is always narrow. Composite midpoints should work the same way, with a narrow orb, and my experience tells me they do.

Again, I definitely see much more accuracy with regard to house placement in the davison in describing the long term outcome of a relationship with the davison.
There have been times I had a very "sun conjunct mercury" relationship with someone but it did not show up in the midpoint composite, though it did show up in the davison. Often, the sun or moon feels like its in the wrong house in the midpoint composite and feels right in the davison. Sometimes though there is a relationship between planets like mars/venus or moon/mars that shows up in the composite and not in the davison which will tell you something important. However, in terms of big picture and long term, the davison wins.

Anybody else out there care to compare house placement between these 2 charts?

IP: Logged

Bucketrider
unregistered
posted July 01, 2007 09:26 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks Alanabelle

You dont find doing all those charts confusing? Or overcomplicating the issue? I feel like 10 planets, 4 angles, points like the vertex and nodes are more plenty.

IP: Logged

SagSun
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 04:02 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey Bucketrider,

Very interesting research. Personally, I prefer the Davison chart by far. I have found it to be a lot more accurate. Composite charts simply don't make any sense to me as far as the way they are computed goes. The Davison chart is a real chart drawn up for the midpoint in time and space between two individuals. The composite, on the other hand, doesn't show what was really happening in the sky. Let's assume, for instance, that two people have their Suns at 3° Capricorn and 3° Virgo, respectively, forming a (favorable) trine in synastry. Their Moons are at 3° Cancer and 3° Virgo, respectively, forming a (favorable) sextile. They'd also have a (favorable) trine between the Sun of the first person and the Moon of the second one as well as a (favorable) sextile between the Sun of the second person and the Moon of the first one. Their composite Sun would be at at 3° Scorpio, their composite Moon at 3° Leo. Composite Sun and Moon would form a (unfavorable) square. It's beyond me why all those very favorable synastry aspects should be negative all of a sudden. Also, with the Davison chart you can still calculate midpoints. Of course, you can also calculate midpoints in the composite chart. But seriously, what significance would the midpoint of two midpoints have? The composite chart has nothing to do with what was happening in the sky at some point in time but only with mathematics. Of course, that's just IMO, and I'm sure a lot of people in this forum will disagree with my logic...

IP: Logged

jane
Knowflake

Posts: 1277
From:
Registered: Jul 2009

posted July 02, 2007 04:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Really good stuff, Bucketrider.

I've also had a problem with viewing a chart based on midpoints as a chart for the relationship itself. As you've pointed out, the composite is an extension of synastry. I love viewing it that way and now it finally makes sense to me. It still has meaning and is an added layer to how 2 people affect each other and interact, but it's not the relationship itself.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the Davison is a chart of the relationship itself either. I don't get how the midpoint in time and space between two people's births could describe their relationship. I'm open to any and all persuading arguments, though.

Even though I don't quite get the logic of how a Davison chart would work, I checked mine with my bf and I do find it to describe our relationship very well, in ways that our composite fails to describe.

I compared our sign and house placements in both charts, and I'd say that overall, the Davison is much more accurate.

What has really got me convinced that the Davison is important is how it interacts with our natal charts. I've heard it said that to learn how a person views a relationship, you should overlay the composite onto that person's natal. Well, when I've done that with our composite chart, I didn't feel like it really gelled with how my bf and I each view our relationship. But when I did it with the Davison, it was extremely accurate. So much so, that I'm convinced that there is definitely something magical and true about the Davison. But I still don't understand why it works.

IP: Logged

alanabelle86
Knowflake

Posts: 88
From: somewhere over the rainbow
Registered: May 2009

posted July 02, 2007 05:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanabelle86     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Thanks Alanabelle

You dont find doing all those charts confusing? Or overcomplicating the issue? I feel like 10 planets, 4 angles, points like the vertex and nodes are more plenty.



Well... I like to be thorough. I don't jump from idea to idea. I may deal with the 10 planets/angles at one point and then the 10 planets/vertex at another. And I don't give any more weight to any aspects that don't really deserve them. Though I do an indepth analysis, it's mostly to help myself learn to be a better astrologer...not to get something mystical out of it.


Besides, because I know how complicated astrology is, I often do those many charts with using planet/angle only contacts. Once I have fully grasped the situation of a couple through and through, only then would I consider looking into extra things like asteroids, arabic points, etc.

The only couple I do that for is me and my boyfriend. Because I know firsthand how we work.


In my studies, though the composite tells quite a few important things, it has been the Davison that has been extremely accurate.

For example:

In our composite, My boyfriend and I have A Scorpio AC. With Pluto/Moon in Scorpio conjunct in the 1st house...and a large stellium in Scorpio & Sagittarius Sun/Mercury/Venus/Saturn also in the 1st house. and then Mars/Uranus conjunct with no aspects in the 2nd. Our whole chart is just conjunctions.

That makes obvious sense to me because he's got a billion planets in Sagittarius plus a few Scorpio ones, and I have many planets in Scorpio plus a few Sagittarius ones.

So all those planets in the composite 1st house and in the sign Scorpio and Sagittarius gives a pretty accurate description of how we are together but it doesn't tell me how we work as a couple. It just tells me how we *are*. We're very involved with one another and in each other's lives (for a young couple, at least), and we're very close.


The davison, analysis was far more accurate in terms of sign, house, and aspect. Not just signs/aspects. The Moon is still conjunct Pluto but in the 12th house- probably indicative of me (Moon) in the relationship being the spiritual, passionate, dramatic, and over-sensitive one who lives by their emotions. And The Sun conjunct Mercury in Gemini, 7th house...very indicative of my boyfriend (Sun..male) being a Sagittarius..much more light in spirit and heart than I, lives through his strength of intellect and logic...AND he's a twin(Mercury), yet he lives for relating to others than himself, and is completely devoted to the relationship. ...AND Venus opposite Uranus, our relationship starting up as quickly as a spark (I vaguely remember where we met and how and the courtship is a blur)...and both of us being highly Uranian individuals.

In my opinion, the Individuals, the Synastry, and the composite are like a meal. It's the base. All the basic ingredients you would start with.

The davison chart is how you choose to cook it, what you "season" it with, and how you serve it.

The Marks charts are how each individual "likes" it or "prefers it". Whether they like the "meal" or not.

Sorry to relate a relationship to food. (I love food, it just kind of happened lol and I'm hungry ) But if you think about it, it's kinda accurate...because a relationship does "nurture" and provide emotional/spiritual/physical nourishment just like food does, right?

------------------
Sagittarius AC, Sun in Scorpio, Moon in Leo

IP: Logged

sassygrrrl
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 11:59 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For me personally, none of the above. I am a big believer of the First Meeting Chart being the most important chart of the relationship, because it is a natalization of when two people come together, thus the true birth of the relationship itself. Synastry with a first meeting chart can also be revealing, as does transits. I used to use the Composite & Davidson Charts, but have found the First Meeting Chart to be far more revealing in the long run. But that's just me.

IP: Logged

Diandra23
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 12:07 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sassy,

i also looked at 1st Meeting but then i couldnt really identify much with.Magy only says that its the relationship chart untill there´s intimacy between the 2 persons.From then on,its the Love Chart,with the day of the happening.The one which overrules that would be of the marriage itself.
I found that i identified more with the Love Chart,even when we yet wasnt intimate

IP: Logged

sassygrrrl
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 12:19 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Diandra
Have you also looked at the Declination and Helio Charts for the first meeting? Magi are also big believers in using those too as they help to fill in the missing gaps of just using the regular chart alone.

IP: Logged

Diandra23
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 12:32 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
By a matter of fact..nop, i didnt looked at that.

i missed that one oopppss.

im gonna look close at it,maybe it has those missin gaps youve talked of!

Thankx

IP: Logged

Diandra23
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 12:40 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DId I do the right thing? ive went to astro and did a event chart with the hour on which we touched for the 1st time.Then,chose the natal to see what happens.
a friend or mine already interpreted our transits for that day we met and really it gave insightfull meanings of that special meeting.
But this isnt the same thing is it?
The natal of the day and time exact,will give a view of the relationhsop itself,and not the individual feelings torwards the relationship?

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 1212
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 02, 2007 12:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hi again ^_^ this is getting interesting.. ^_^
hmm personally I didn't use Davison much, so I still can't conclude which is the better one. I tried to compare the Davison and composite between me and my bf, and I found both of them insightful. But the main reason I'm still not convinced about Davison is coz the midpoint between time and space isn't very convincing for me yet, while I'm more convinced about the midpoint (balance) between two person's energy. ^_^ But well, I'm also not totally convinced about composite, as there's no complete balance between two person's energies. ^_~;
But this thread is definitely food for some thought lol.. XD

But well, in any case, the best method is the method that can help us to understand about the relationships and other issues. So it's up to each one of us to find the best method for ourselves. ^_^

IP: Logged

sassygrrrl
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 02:04 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Diandra, the First Meeting Chart will reveal the relationship itself and the direction it will ultimately go. For example, the Moon and it's aspects will reveal what the emotional state of the relationship will be from then on. Using myself as an example, in my first physical meeting with the Mr. Aries in my life (we had met online & chatted on the phone prior to that) the Moon was exactly trining Venus, which according to the Magi is a great aspect to meet someone if you want the two of you to fall in love. (Did he fall in love? Well I know I certainly did :P) And the Moon was contra-paralleling Pluto in the Declinations which is supposed to cause obsessiveness (well there is certainly that too. :P)
The transits of the First Meeting Chart to one's Natal Chart will reveal how it will effect that person individually.

IP: Logged

alanabelle86
Knowflake

Posts: 88
From: somewhere over the rainbow
Registered: May 2009

posted July 02, 2007 03:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanabelle86     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wish I had a First Meeting chart. It's be very interesting to add to the mix. To be honest, the only thing I could even put down as a first meeting is the first time me and my love became physically intimate with one another.


Like I said, our courtship was a whirlwind...haha

IP: Logged

Diandra23
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 03:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sassygirl OMG

I also met my bf throught the net and just talked about 3 months everyday before we met hihihi - i longed so much thats why i have an exact 2st meeting chart

Yup - we do have the moon in trine with Venus - but we do have a couple of kiron clashes according to Magi on that tropical.( also sun trined pluto,ceres and vertex and my own NN conjuncted transiting Sun)

in the Helio,theres Earth/Moon trining mars,saturn,juno and vestaand osiris! kiron conjuncts ceres and kikunks Amor - thats more like it hihihi

IP: Logged

Bucketrider
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 04:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good discussion here.

I think the general consensus is that we have all mostly had similar expriences comparing the davison and composite. The davison being far more accurate in terms of sign, and house placements. I would reiterate that the orbs in a davison are similar to that of a natal chart which can be fairly wide 6-7 degrees for most major aspects and wider for the sun and moon. The composite really would not be more than 1-3 orbs for any aspect and sign and house placements should be disregarded. That means disregard just about everything astro.com says in their stock "partner" interpretations. Again, the big point here as that the way the composite midpoint chart is done is with the midpoints. Midpoints are important but only with a narrow orb and have nothing to do with house placement or sign. The relationship is mathematical and it mostly responds to hard aspect triggers like conjunctions, oppositions and maybe squares. This is the standard approach used in magi, uranian, and cosmobiology astrology. There is wide agreement on how midpoints work so I don't get why the composite was ever treated as something like a "real" chart. As I and others have said, I think the davison is real bec it represents an actual day and if you accept the idea of secondary progressions and the idea that each day is its own particular event and creation then the midpoint day works within that. It is not the most intuitive idea but it seems to work and is consistent with these other astrological techniques. Secondary progressions are a little strange as a concept but they are startingly accurate which is why they are so widely used.

I dont see a huge amount of evidence for the first meeting chart as being as important as the magi society puts forth. Its a more fatalistic stance than the davison and consistent with the magi approach in general which is overly fatalistic and not growth oriented or psychologically productive. The first meeting chart are a background influence and maybe effect the initial stages of a relationship but not the long term. By magi's own admission, the first meeting chart gets replaced by other event charts within the relationship, in which the relationship turns particular corners, .,.like the love chart, maybe the "moving in" chart, the buying house chart, the birth of a baby chart, etc These would all be background influences and perhaps point to some themes. I still think the synastry, the composite and the davison - roughly in that order of importance, would be the most significant and relationship effecting (aside from free will of course). Those dont get replaced by anything according to anyone and all the proponents of those methods speak about working with the energies productively as opposed to the magi society who has a very fatalistic, unsophisticated, disempowering stance on astrology and sees aspects as all good or all bad. Though I do think they right about the importance of chiron and juno being about sex and sex appeal and not marriage and serious connection/healing as chiron is.

Anybody else see much evidence for a first meeting chart being significant long term?

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 3161
From: 2,015 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 02, 2007 08:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi
    It has been pointed out that the chart devised by Ronald Davison is based on the mid points of birth time,place and date. Creating a relationship chart. The ASC, and all the angles of this relationship chart are accurate. Therefore you can progress the relationship against the natal progressions as well.
One thing I would like to point out [is] that for those who have relations with others born in a location significantly different than where they live now might like to consider re-location of the chart. Astro tends to warn against the significance of location. I strongly disagree.
    In the Davison a longitude+latitude midpoint is given. If you find- physically on a map the location of this mid-point the relationship chart is now open to any and all esoteric forms of comparison that can be achieved with a natal. Without confusing the issue I would also like to point out that no relationship is static. And this specific place can be used. The new charts offered on Astro for the mid-points of multi relations 2, 3, or more charts combined- are applicable to families and work scenarios. But I don't want to stray from your topic. I have only compared 2 relationships using the created Long+lat against a town. I was born in CA. And reside at present on the Eastern Seaboard. The two charts I erected came up with a mid-point location of Stillwater OK. It is fascinating.
And more importantly it seems to work.
    [*} As far as event charts i.e. first meeting etc. By them selves no, but I have combined them [syn] against celestial events of significance [ say the Venus eclipse in 04] and in other event charts significant to the relationship. Then, it seems to have meaning again. But the first meeting- or the first event of any kind is a time capsule.
-JMO

IP: Logged

Jazzebel
unregistered
posted July 02, 2007 11:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I couldn't agree more with you, Bucketrider. In fact - I agree 100% of what you've said so far on Composite, Davison, First meeting charts. I have been repeating those exact same thoughts in my old posts over the years but I guess I never really backed them up with any examples. I just know it for myself and that was pretty much satisfactory to me.
I totaly agree the Composite is a mere midpoint chart and should be treated and interpeted as such - narrow orbits, only hard aspects, no house placements or sign importance. In fact - I am not even convinced any aspects in the composite chart should be considered since every "planet" in the Composite is alerady calculated once based on the midpoint between partners planets. Calculating the aspects between "planets" in the Composite chart is like trying to interpet an aspect between two midpoints. Midpoint astrology- Uranian and Cosmobiology- never interpet an aspect between two midpoints, it's always a midpoint to a planet. In my personal opinion- the Composite chart should only be used in a synastry between the Composite chart and each partner's natal chart . i.e. - a midpoint to planet interaction. But that's too rigid of a thought, I know. I still look at the aspects in the Composite charts despite my own belief that two midpoints do not feel each other unless they are triggered by an actual planet.

I am more convinced in the accuracy of Davison method but just like someone pointed out above- I still am not sure how a chart drawn for the halfway space and time between two people would describe their relationship. I am holding my horses on that one eaither. I still prefer it before the Composite thou.

as about the First meeting chart - right with you on the concept that it only describes the initial feel of the realtionship. This type of chart is very important to consider thou, for we all know that the first impression always leaves the deepest print on our minds and forms our first judgement.

IP: Logged

sassygrrrl
unregistered
posted July 03, 2007 01:17 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The only way to know for sure if the First Meeting Chart is a valid chart is to test it. Look at transits that hit it during important events regarding the relationship. Does anything stand out during these transits? Are there certain transits to the FM Chart that seem important or to repeat?
Looking at my own First Meeting Chart with Mr. Aries, when he once posted some beautifully romantic poetry (he had written) on a forum that I heavily suspected was about me, the transiting Moon was exactly conjunct our First Meeting Sun.

IP: Logged

Bucketrider
unregistered
posted July 03, 2007 02:10 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great further clarification on how midpoints work, Jazzabel. What brought the whole midpoint vs. planet distinction to my mind was recent research into aspect patterns like yods and what not. The point made by the author is that midpoints and personal points like the ASC, DSC, MC cannot be part of an aspect pattern bec they are receptive and dont assert energy, they dont create tension bec they dont "push back." Like you were saying midpoints connecting to midpoints are meaningless in uranian astrology. Its yin/yin. They merely serve as buttons or triggers. They cannot trigger. (The magi society also does not get this and they have long diatribes about transiting midpoints which make no sense).

Again, I see the davison as being similar in concept to the idea of secondary progressions. The notion is that each day is an essential and particular creation and has particular properties, depending on how its applied. With progressions, when stretched out over a year, with the davison as a relational meeting point. The theory needs more development but empirically both seem to work more solidly than charts based on midpoints.

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 1212
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 03, 2007 04:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hmm.. isn't it a bit too fast to conclude that the composite method shouldn't be considered useful? ^_^; Most people might find Davison more accurate than composite, but it doesn't mean that we can conclude that it is useless.. ^_^;

Personally, looking at the Davison, even if I also find it accurate, I still can't understand the meaning of doing the midpoint of the time and space between two person.. Actually, it makes more sense for me to find the midpoint by the composite method, simply coz it is more physical, more real - they're the midpoints that resembles the balance point of the energies expressed between two person. But well, I think that one of the composite method's problem is, actually there's no perfect balance between these energies, as they are not really equally expressed.

But even if I give more emphasis on the composite method, I'm not defending which one is better. For me, the composite method still has that flaw about the balance between the energies; and about the Davison method, I still can't see the meaning of this method's way of calculating the midpoint. But both seems to be interesting, and both holds useful astrology insights, so I just want to have a further understanding about each method. ^_^
But if someone could explain about the meaning of calculating the midpoints by using the midpoint of time and space, it would be appreciated. ^_^

IP: Logged

hypatia238
Moderator

Posts: 13315
From: Mercury novile and parallel Pluto, Pluto septile Southnode
Registered: Sep 2014

posted September 09, 2018 02:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for hypatia238     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bucketrider:
Ive just had a eureka moment Id like to share. After going back and forth bet which composite chart is more accurate, at first favoring the composite and then the davison for a while and then going back and feeling that the composite def has something important to say I think I have finally hit on where they fit.

The composite (midpoint chart) is basically an extension of synastry. It represents the midpoints between the two charts. Midpoints within a natal chart represent a blending of the two planets it is aspecting. The composite is a meeting place and exists as a contintuation of the aspects between the charts that occurs in synastry. It does not represent the true relationship as the "third" entity. The one that responds to tranists and progressions.
The davison chart is a more accurate representation of the real relationship as it is experienced by both parties, once they have really gotten past the beginning of it and have truly gotten to know one another. It is what nurtures or presents them with particular kinds of learning (working with particular dysfunctions and life enhancing "gifts") in the long run. It can be interacted with in a more responsive way than the composite chart. The composite emerges from the synastry and represents an overall feeling and some interactional dynamics between people. The davison goes beyond that and influences the real structure and nature of two people's interactions in the long term.

The davison resonates and is a more fixed entity. It was an actual day. In a similar way to the way progressions so accurately forecast periods of time for us, they are days, complete entities, stretched out and exprienced. Each day is its own creation and the order and structure of the planets is not random. The days, as they were created have particular significances. The davison, being the actual midpoint day between two people is a particular entity that was a real created potential that manifested at a point in time and continues to exist in a more latent form even after days pass. Its a deep mystical concept and one that coincides with the notion that time is an illusion and is not linear the way we think.
The composite chart is not a creation in the same way. The signs of a composite chart never felt significant to me. They are incidental. As are the house placements. As midpoint theory would suggest, its the aspects (conjunction, opp, square, trine, etc) that matter most. Those aspects have meaning in a composite relationship but only as they emerge from the synastry. They serve to draw people together and work in an immediate, instinctual way. As synastry does. Not that synastry is not ongoing and still relevant 15 years later. It is and so is the composite but neither tell the deeper story of the relationship between two people and the unique properties it has and will manifest in particular ways and areas via its aspects and house placements the way a davison can. In the end, I believe the davison is the bigger story.

That said, the orbs for a composite midpoint chart need to be much narrower to be felt while a davison chart would respond to more traditional orbs. Midpoint orbs are bet 1-3 degrees depending on the body being aspected. I would say the 1-3 orb should apply to a composite, being an expansion of the midpoint idea. The same essentially holds true for points like ASC, MC or vertex which respond to midpoint like orbs of probably not more than 3 degrees. These sensitive points are not actual bodies and do not exert an energy on another points or body, they merely exist and respond or receive an energy from something else. As opposed to a planet which is an actual body that emits of energy (or represents an emission -depending on how you want to look at it). That said, a planet opposing the ASC is dif than a planet opposing the sun. In kind of a yin/yang way, the sun yangs back to whatever is opposing it so there is tension. The ASC does not. Midpoints, as a composite chart would work the same way.

Any thoughts?


Great analysis btw and thanks for sharing.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 124596
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 10, 2018 01:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bump!

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2020

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a