posted January 02, 2013 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StacyLewis:
Okay, yeah - I'm going to take the flames and wisecracks in lieu of actual astrologically-sound commentary as a sign that there's some degree of merit to this theory.

---

posted January 03, 2013 11:12 PM              

Charts with indicating how compatibility between a person DOES NOT GUARANTEE the relationship will work out.Other factors like culture, life experience, finances,etc.. all play through how the relationship will ultimately result in. However thats not to say Astrology is useless in compatibility matches-indeed from personal experience they are quite accurate in foreshadowing the personality of someone you were just recently introduced to.

So use Astrology as a way of forecasting how the relationship would turn out but do not forget that external factors like money and your OWN ACTIONS can affect what should have been a perfect match-up into a failure.

I think as far as compatibility goes in Astrology its best to remember this line:

posted January 04, 2013 01:39 AM            

Yeah, I think the wisecracks and ridicule I'm receiving in response to my honest inquiries, do prove there's at least some validity to what I'm saying, or at least that I'm hitting a nerve. If there were no merit to it, I'd have received responses with actual astrological content in them going into detail and clarifying or explaining. Instead, I've gotten a string of personal attacks, which shows that no one can give a response with a legitimate astrological basis, to what I'm saying. People resort to slinging mud when they have no evidence to support what they're saying.

I want to reiterate here again, that I came to this conclusion after years of having checked out composite and synastry charts. I'm 31 years old as I type this, and first started to learn astrology in my teens, so while I'm not an expert, I'm not clueless by a long shot.

To some extent a lot of the threads I've seen on various astrological boards over the years - including this one - add another level of legitimacy to what I'm saying also, because it's not uncommon to see people asking questions about why the relationship they have with someone is so jarringly different from the composite chart they have with that individual. It's a constant theme, that usually results in a string of posts where people try to explain away the fact that the actual reality of the relationship, doesn't match the composite chart. People spend pages and pages trying to make a square peg fit a round hole, and for some reason no one ever stops and goes, "Well maybe the problem is composite charts, themselves."

One of the things that drew me to astrology in the first place, was the general accuracy I noticed it tended to have. I think that's one of the reasons it stands the test of time also in spite of everything also. But by that same token, over time a lot of things about it, are shown to be incorrect, or reworked as time passes, and some things are removed, and some things are added. As time goes on it gets honed and refined so that all the things that don't work, are discarded, and you get a final series of techniques and rules that work, more often than not.

So I think that yeah, it's time to put the composite technique on trial and take a good hard look at it, and that it might be time to let it go the way of other techniques that have fallen into disuse due to their lack of accuracy. Or at least time to have an honest, real conversation about it.

I think a lot of people just aren't willing to do that because of their own emotional investment in the concept of composites, so it renders most incapable of putting aside their feelings and looking strictly at the facts and data and deciding if it has any merit, from that alone.

And I think that, deciding to try and hold onto something just because you like it without taking the time to examine it and see if it is factually sound, is ultimately much more primitive than having the maturity to be able to examine the evidence and do so in a dignified and intelligent manner that shows respect for yourself and the people you're having a discussion with.

posted January 04, 2013 02:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StacyLewis:
I know this is controversial, but I actually think astrology is barking up the wrong tree with composites period, whether Davison or the standard type, and...that they should be discarded altogether in astrological analysis.

I'll tell you why.
......
I think if you focus solely on synastry (including the vertex) and natal midpoints, you get the complete picture.
......
I'll give some (general)examples to show how I came to this conclusion. I have a damn good composite with an ex.
..............
Then there's other people that I have horrible composites with, but in synastry our planets fall all over each other in conjunctions, and a lot of our planets fall on one another's natal midpoints as well, along with aspects to one another's vertex, and there were intense feelings with those people and we react strongly to one another.
..............

*blank stare*

---

I beg to disagree.

Firstly, you yourself said it was an 'ex' you had the good composite with....and that with 'other' people you have great synastry with them and a bad composite.

The key here is that you had the relationship with the ex. 'Other people' you had intense feelings but did you have a 'relationship' with them.

Secondly you can still have a relationship with a 'bad' composite, the key is whether the aspects in the composite, negate any length of involvement.

You do get the complete picture in synastry yes, and this will probably be reflected in the composite as after all the composite is the synastry too.

The composite is like a focal summary of the synastry. The reason why some people wouldn't like it is because they like to specifically see how each person directly affects the other and it is a challenge to see the relationship as an entity - but sometimes in such intricacies you can lose the big picture - the composite.

And vice versa sometimes in the big picture you can lose the details.

Basically I would hazard to offer, that you 'prefer' the synastry to look out how people relate. I on the otherhand prefer to look at a composite to see whether a relationship is likely and what will be the themes and how long it will last or whether it is unlikely to get off the ground.

I think the problem for me with synastry is it is such hardwork to synthesise the overall impact of the themes. However when there is a relationship, it is good to see significant aspects in the synastry because this is helpful to predict other possible relationships rather than just conjecture.

So I would have to offer, that composites are useful to some people - me, in fact.

posted January 04, 2013 03:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chryseis:

I beg to disagree.

Firstly, you yourself said it was an 'ex' you had the good composite with....and that with 'other' people you have great synastry with them and a bad composite.

The key here is that you had the relationship with the ex. 'Other people' you had intense feelings but did you have a 'relationship' with them.

Secondly you can still have a relationship with a 'bad' composite, the key is whether the aspects in the composite, negate any length of involvement.

You do get the complete picture in synastry yes, and this will probably be reflected in the composite as after all the composite is the synastry too.

The composite is like a focal summary of the synastry. The reason why some people wouldn't like it is because they like to specifically see how each person directly affects the other and it is a challenge to see the relationship as an entity - but sometimes in such intricacies you can lose the big picture - the composite.

And vice versa sometimes in the big picture you can lose the details.

Basically I would hazard to offer, that you 'prefer' the synastry to look out how people relate. I on the otherhand prefer to look at a composite to see whether a relationship is likely and what will be the themes and how long it will last or whether it is unlikely to get off the ground.

I think the problem for me with synastry is it is such hardwork to synthesise the overall impact of the themes. However when there is a relationship, it is good to see significant aspects in the synastry because this is helpful to predict other possible relationships rather than just conjecture.

So I would have to offer, that composites are useful to some people - me, in fact.

---

A composite is supposed to show the nature of the relationship and the unit you form as a couple.

My composite chart with that ex had an insane number of trines in it - however, the "relationship" - if you can call it that, was horrible. The first time he told me he loved me, I actually thought he was setting me up for some kind of cruel joke.

What you just said was akin to saying, "Composite charts show a relationship, and you DID have a relationship with him, therefore composite charts are accurate".

Which was never what I was saying. What I'm saying is that composite charts don't reflect the actual relationship between two people, accurately in most instances.

How many times do you see people saying they have a great relationship with someone they have a composite chart full of squares with, or how you'll see people say they feel nothing or dislike someone they have a composite chart full of trines or sextiles with?

The excuse you're usually given is that squares are actually good. I've heard that so much, that even I started to parrot that back - I even did it earlier in this thread.

Then I remembered how, when you first learn astrology, you're taught that trines are positive, good aspects; sextiles are minor, but good; conjunctions are neutral, purely a combination of two energies; and that squares and oppositions are difficult/hard aspects.

But then when you look at a composite chart full of trines for a horrible relationship, people try to make sense of it by telling you that trines are bad?

I've seen this type of thing happen over and over where composites are concerned. Everyone tries to explain things away and make composites valid by rewriting the fundamental rules of astrology to try and redeem this particular technique.

posted January 04, 2013 07:27 AM            

You're speaking in generalities when specifics are needed.

posted January 04, 2013 08:29 AM            

quote:

---

StacyLewis: My composite chart with that ex had an insane number of trines in it - however, the "relationship" - if you can call it that, was horrible.

---

Like I said, having certain types of aspects don't necessarily define a relationship as good or not! You can have a lot of trines and bad relationship - in fact, I imagine the best relationship would need a variety of trines and squares and conjunctions, and so forth.

posted January 04, 2013 08:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
i'm sure RAS will have something to say about this

---

haha. I would, but I have aries ruling my sixth house. That means I'm too lazy to explain myself when I feel if you really wanted to find out the truth you would find it out yourself (aries). If you think you can tell a lot about a relationship by just looking at the synastry, and that method has worked very well for you in the past, then for sure enlighten us. By all means, keep doing what you do. Show us what you can do, though! I wanna see. We can theorize for days, but I say the proof is in the pudding.

posted January 04, 2013 08:54 AM            

EDIT: The fact that you keep saying that composites full of trines are supposed to show lasting/good relationships shows that you have no idea what makes a good composite. It is not trines, but conjunctions that make a good composite. And between benefic planets at that. Trines are alright, but are usually barely felt in composite, only serving to stabilize whatever foundation should already be there (created by important composite aspect configurations which are too detailed to go into here). Squares with outer planets except pluto are always bad, but otherwise they are quite desirable as they spark excitement attraction and interest.

posted January 04, 2013 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StacyLewis:

A composite is supposed to show the nature of the relationship and the unit you form as a couple.

My composite chart with that ex had an insane number of trines in it - however, the "relationship" - if you can call it that, was horrible. The first time he told me he loved me, I actually thought he was setting me up for some kind of cruel joke.

What you just said was akin to saying, "Composite charts show a relationship, and you DID have a relationship with him, therefore composite charts are accurate".

Which was never what I was saying. What I'm saying is that composite charts don't reflect the actual relationship between two people, accurately in most instances.

How many times do you see people saying they have a great relationship with someone they have a composite chart full of squares with, or how you'll see people say they feel nothing or dislike someone they have a composite chart full of trines or sextiles with?

The excuse you're usually given is that squares are actually good. I've heard that so much, that even I started to parrot that back - I even did it earlier in this thread.

Then I remembered how, when you first learn astrology, you're taught that trines are positive, good aspects; sextiles are minor, but good; conjunctions are neutral, purely a combination of two energies; and that squares and oppositions are difficult/hard aspects.

But then when you look at a composite chart full of trines for a horrible relationship, people try to make sense of it by telling you that trines are bad?

I've seen this type of thing happen over and over where composites are concerned. Everyone tries to explain things away and make composites valid by rewriting the fundamental rules of astrology to try and redeem this particular technique.

I'm wondering now why no one stops and goes, "Well, maybe composites are just wrong."

---

and....maybe they're not

maybe what you might have to come to terms with is that you don't like composites because you don't understand them.

you swap and change your 'whys', and then start whingeing when others give their opinion. 'The true and honest inquiry' that you whinge is all you are doing, is actually pretty heated on your part in response to others --- hmmm, seen that before on this site, numerous occasions, in fact I'm sure a few of us here can see the hallmarks of a pattern in this type of 'discussion'. Remind you of a few usernames anyone?

And no, what I said was you said you had a great composite with an ex, and bad composites with 'other people'. I was pointing out that you were using a relationship that you did have, to try and illustrate why one should discount composites based on your idea that it was a crap relationship. Conversely you say 'other people' that you had great synastry with remained described by you as other people, not other exes. Thus you have just argued in favour of a composite being significant in determining the viability for a relationship - whether you look back and hate the ex or not

And you say:'How many times do you see people saying they have a great relationship with someone they have a composite chart full of squares with,'....yes how many times - uh.. random comment....and some squares are good, in fact all the original still stands for aspects in both types of analysis, however, as always it depend on the planets involved and the combination of aspect and placements, and the synthesis of the chart/s.

You say: "I think composites are worthless, and that as long as the synastry is good (and by 'good', I mean as long as the bulk of the subjects planets form some kind of major aspect to one another), that's all that's needed"....so what if they are all trines and sextile like you were complaining about...is that still all that is needed.

You say: "I've seen this type of thing happen over and over where composites are concerned. Everyone tries to explain things away and make composites valid by rewriting the fundamental rules of astrology to try and redeem this particular technique."...everyone? explain things away? make them valid - they are valid they are the midpoints of planetary dynamics of the two synastries...and explain them away by rewriting the rules? - when, who is rewriting the rules of astrology to try and redeem a composite?

And please, post the insane number of trines in this composite with this ex - I would be interested to view this composite.

You say: "conjunctions are neutral, purely a combination of two energies" ah, I see your problem, you over generalise and try and lump things under an oversimplified explanation. In fact conjunctions, are rarely neutral, if you mean neither good nor bad, then neutral is a sorry term to drum up. In fact some conjunctions can be horrendous especially depending on the rest of the chart and the signs and rulerships. For example Neptune conjunct Venus in Sagittarius squaring Saturn in Virgo in synastry would make you want to puke. Neptune conjunct Venus in Gemini squaring Moon in Pisces would make you alternate insanely between misery, laughter, and wanting to jump off a bridge.

And you say: "What I'm saying is that composite charts don't reflect the actual relationship between two people, accurately in most instances." Which composites in most instances? I haven't seen these composites.

So according to you, composites are worthless and never accurate, and that as long as the synastry is good, and what you mean by good is that as long as the bulk of the planets form 'some kind of major aspect to one another' that is all that is needed.

and, [as long as these major aspects between the planets trigger 'something', than that's enough to make the people want to be together, period] are you for real?

"And if the feelings (synastry) are strong enough, they'll stick around for the long haul with one another in spite of all the hardships"...um I don't think you're aware of the number of failed marriages, let alone the number of failed defacto relationships, let alone the number of failed seeing each other relationships, let alone the number of online relationships that never make it past the first drink, let alone the number of one night stands that never go for a second date, let alone the number of chat ups that never become a one night stand, let alone the number of wishful thinkings that never become a chat up, let alone the number of people who are alone....omg, I have superb synastry with any number of celebrities that I've chart stalked, and if I really want to be bizarre, I bet I could create a chart for a gorilla that I have, by your term good synastry because our feelings are strong enough because we trigger something in one another, because 'as long as most of our planets form some kind of major aspect tow one another" that's all we need.

Erm, Ima gonna find me that gor-ill-ae, yay-es.

posted January 04, 2013 09:53 AM            

quote:

---

But then when you look at a composite chart full of trines for a horrible relationship, people try to make sense of it by telling you that trines are bad?

---

posted January 04, 2013 10:38 AM              

http://www.astrosoftware.com/Symmetries.htm

For a long time I didn`t put much stock in composites myself, for several reasons.

HOwever I came to understand (which is of course just MY understanding, not an universal truth!), that it all is based on harmonic (aspectual/ geometrical) relationships in the natal.

I do not dismiss either composite nor synastry these days. I usually rely more on synastries though, but that is my preference.

The basis of all is the natal chart. And of course it is individual people who form a relationship, so it makes sense that their natal chart is the foundation of any relationship being formed between them.

It is quite easy to see how the synastry charts reflect the natal charts is dependent on them.

However, it is maybe not as apparent, but composites are ALSO firmly rooted in the natal charts.

As a matter of fact composites are midpoint-charts between the two natals; which of course means that the opposition in a composite chart really is also a conjunction (as it is emphasizes the far midpoint, instead of the near midpoint we usally pick; this becomes very interesting if two planets are being apart exactly 180°; there is no near and far midpoint in this case; just two midpoints, being equidistant from the planets in question).

In my experience the conjunction/ opposition, especially in a composite, is by far the most important aspect; and it is from that basis that we start our interpretation, and check for modifying aspects, like trines or squares.
This is also true for composite planets being conjunct/opposite natal planets. Which is more important than is given credit to.
Even if we are in a relationship and that relationship seems to have a life on its own, we are still two individuals being in that relationship, and each person might react differently to what is going on between them.

For example: there might be a Sun-Venus-conjunction in a composite, indicating that sharing of affections and pleasures is a theme in that relationship.
But if my Saturn is opposite that Sun-Venus-conjunction in the composition, I could very well be inclined to reject the possibly
loving connection, probably because of my individual reaction to SAturn, some fears and insecurities (it is not a hypothetical example. I have it in one of my composites).

As for trines vs. squares. Well, the planets that are being connected through the aspect define the kind of relationship more than the nature of the aspect itself.
Of course the intensity and energy is different; more smoothly with the trine, more bumpy and intense with the square. But a square between two sexual planets can be more sparkly than a trine. (though the intensity might get too much in the long run)

BTW one of my favourite things to do with transits is to check the composite of the transitchart/ eventchart with my natal, as well as the transits to natal midpoints.
I love these AHA-lightbulb moments I am getting with these.
They usually describe the events so exactly and its effect on me, that it often has cause me some serious cases of goosebumps.
It is at least entertaining to have a look at.

posted January 04, 2013 11:34 AM            

"Look at it this way, lots of squares in a composite can show a very binding relationship. Lots of trines and sextiles in a synastry chart can show harmony, but also show two people who are very lackadaisical toward each other."

Anymore talk from StacyLewis about "wisecracks and ridicule" reinforcing her theory is with horse blinders on. People on the thread have provided "sound astrological reasoning". She chooses not to see it.

posted January 04, 2013 03:07 PM            

.

.

------------------
~ I have a DO NOT DISTURB sign on my imagination ... because I want to frustrate the twins ... Convention and Dogma

~ The moment I cease to seek the truth, or settle for the truth in the moment ... that is the moment I cease to be a seeker, and become a fundamentalist instead.

~ The truest acts of charity are never disclosed ... they remain a secret between Man, the doer and God.
Because Man knows that each charitable act is an opportunity for him to revel in God just as God avails of His chance to revel in Man through every act of charity.
For them both to continue to rejoice in each other, Man knows he cannot allow worldly accolades to distract him. So he continues to act in kindness ... secretly.

posted January 04, 2013 03:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mockingbird:

Like, you could have an ex to which you react strongly to/with and to which you *still* react strongly; but, for some reason, the relationship just didn't hold. Something misfires once the two people are in a "thing" together for any length.
I mean, you hear about that all the time.

---

I had a really significant experience with this when I was younger. My ex boyfriend's sun is conjunct my Juno. Then, planet for planet, we only had good aspects, thus;

Sun trine sun
moon sextile moon
Mercury trine Mercury
Venus sextile Venus
Mars trine Mars

and so on down the line, mostly with conjunctions.

We really loved each other, but we didn't love having a relationship. The synastry chart didn't have any glaring signs that this would be the case, but the composite was revealing: basically, to put it simply, we had nothing really cohesive going on in composite except for sun conjunct NN. But that wasn't enough by itself, apparently.

posted January 04, 2013 03:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:

In my experience the conjunction/ opposition, especially in a composite, is by far the most important aspect; and it is from that basis that we start our interpretation, and check for modifying aspects, like trines or squares.
This is also true for composite planets being conjunct/opposite natal planets. Which is more important than is given credit to.

---

Interesting! So when my planet opposes another person's planet, the composite planet does double time, almost? It can go in either one house or another.

posted January 04, 2013 04:45 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Thanks Ceri, for the David Cochrane article. Excellent read!

.

.

---

You`re welcome.

posted January 04, 2013 04:48 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Interesting! So when my planet opposes another person's planet, the composite planet does double time, almost? It can go in either one house or another.

---

Yes, when it is really precisely opposite.
Also, in some instances the far midpoint is being chosen instead of the usual near one, when otherwise Mercury or Venus would end up opposite Sun in a composite, as this cannot happen in a normal chart.

posted January 04, 2013 05:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StacyLewis:
People threw hissy fits when they were told the earth was round, too...but eventually, they came around.

---