posted February 05, 2015 10:44 PM            

I feel a little the same about the Comp because it is not ACTUAL points but midpoints and like the synastry better because it is ACTUAL placements.

The actual chart seems very sacred to me and hence Draconic seems like a fudging of it.

I would love to hear what you think. Thanks~

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted February 07, 2015 07:46 AM            

What always struck me as interesting was that Edgar Cayce (in his trance states) were giving astrological info about the people coming to him (whom he did not know before). The info was accurate, but it was not the tropical chart positions he mentioned, but the Draconic ones.

The Draco chart is a very old zodiac, earliest used in Babylonia (the origin of our form of astrology), but of course it is not the tropical chart, it has to be interpreted a little differently and always in terms of the tropical chart.

---------------------

As for the composite I once would have shared your opinion, until I realized what the composite really is, an illumination of both natal and synastry charts.
It can never be seen independently from the individual charts, as it is - for simplicity sakes - a summary of them, pointing out the key points in both.

I know some say that a good composite chart will win out over a bad synastry.
Not so.
But not because I think it is weak or invalid, but because there is NO good composite, when the synastry is bad. (whatever that means in each case).

posted February 07, 2015 07:48 AM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted February 07, 2015 01:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Thanks Ceri. I am sooo glad you chimed in. This is one question. I think there can be a "good" Comp and a "bad" synastry though. Why do you disagree?

---

Because, since the composite is a mathematical construct, it is simply depicting what is already there natally and synastrically. It does not add anything new, even though it might SEEM so.
Also since it`s a midpoint chart I am not completely sure we even interprete it the right way, we treat it as a natal chart, but that is not what it is.
Where it is very valuable, is highlighting aspectual patterns either in both natals or in the synastry. But that is really all it does.

For example, if two people both have a Venus-Pluto-square in their natal, it will come up in the composite as well. If one has the waxing and one the waning square, it might become a conjunction or opposition.
Of course if both have a Venus-Pluto-aspect but different ones, the aspect in the composite might be a different one as well.
Personally I think it will make a difference, if there is a Moon-SAturn-square in the composite, depnding on natal and synastric aspects. We have to go back to the natals to see how it really works.
For example, if both people have the square, the tension might be just too high; but what if they have sextile and trine (which will also result in the composite square).
Personally I think that the square will simply make these aspects "louder", more obvious, more dominating, but not necessarily in a bad way. But surely that depends on how it is integrated all in all.

Also, the composite is a midpoint chart, midpoints, while valuable, need something strong and energetic to bring them into manifestation, hence we use the conj, square and opposition (and sometimes the 8th harmonic aspects) with them, but NOT the sextile and trine. The reason for that is that the sextile and trine (as isolated aspects) are too soft to kickstart the integration of midpoints.

There is an exception though, and that exeption is when we deal with aspectfigures, symmetrical ones, like the Grand trine, or a wedge or a golden rectangle for example. Those will always come with midpoint pictures as well (only in tight orbs of course), which act like a burning glass and additionally keep the energy flowing in that circuit.

Concluding from that I would emphasize aspectfigures in composite as well; an isolated sextile or even trine in the composite is pretty much "nothing".
not totally nothing, but other aspects will dominate.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/219549.html

If looking for patterns between two people, start with the composite, and trace it back to the natals. It`s easier this way. If you see a Venus-Mars-opposition at 2 degrees in the composite, you will know that there MUST be a resonance either between the two natals or in the synastry.

posted February 07, 2015 04:21 PM            

I think that anything that distracts astrologers from the natal/radix chart as the starting place is not a good trend for astrology. Astrologers get bored with the ordinary. looking at flat wheel charts for years can do that. So they start coming up with tricks, gimmicks -- often based on some obscure metaphysical text (often misinterpreted over a language barrier) -- to inject more wonder and magic.

If you are getting bored with flat wheel charts, then add in the declinations. Practicing astrology as if the sky were flat can get bland. It doesn't have to be that way.

Declinations show the planets' movements north and south of our earth's celestial equator. Some will simply ignore this because there isn't enough mythology or flourish attached to it. Just reality.

A better look at how the planets really move:
http://youtu.be/PWxcgJUCDxg

posted February 08, 2015 03:11 AM            

In natal I have Cancer Sun and Capricorn Moon with a Capricorn Asc/Cancer Dsc in Draconic.

Natal NN/SN are in 3H/9H and Draconic Sun/Moon are in Sagittarius and Gemini.

posted February 08, 2015 03:34 PM            

While I do make use of the composite chart for my wife & I and for marriages/domestic partnerships, I don't have to do so in order to practice solid, professional astrology. I also do not have to accept or study draconic simply because others do and make fantastical claims for it. Its modern existence is pinned to notions garnered from ancient Babylonian writings on mythology. I equate it in antiquity and relevance to Hellenistic astrology.

Not every astrologer is going to choose to study draconic. If you find value in it, great. Make use of it. But to study it in-depth takes time, attention and brains away from studying the radix. It removes astrology further from clearly observable reality, attempting to replace it with something 'higher' or 'better.'

Astrologers can make many fantastical claims for it in order to promote it, but that doesn't give it solidity. Claims tend to run in the direction of your 'true soul's intentions', impressing upon people they might be missing out on this huge all-important thing if they don't pursue and understand their draconic chart. Nonsense.

This would be more believable if such fantastical claims weren't used to promote it.

I'm open to being convinced. I just don't see anything convincing yet.

And here is my main point regarding various additions to astrology in recent times...

The more you get away from radix-rooted, nuts-and-bolts astrology, the more scattered your attention and the more removed from reality the practice gets. I'm not a fan of the modern trend of asteroid crazed astrology, but at least those are posited against the backdrop of the radix. Draconic attempts to replace the entire thing with another zodiac.

Most astrologers are still practicing astrology as if the sky were flat, tracing an only east-west movement over us. Until we can focus our attention fully enough to integrate the full movement of the sky into ordinary astrological practice I don't see that we are ready to expect a mass movement of astrologers to other alternative techniques or methodologies. Doing so scatters attention and tends to create poorer, more superficial practice.

My stance has to do with astrological practice in the field as a whole. If a individual finds benefit in knowing their draconic chart, great! Use what gives you insight into yourself and helps empower you. As far as my practice goes, I see no reason to split my time up from very in-depth research and specialty work to take up another system simply because others have and there are far-reaching, unprovable claims made for it.

posted February 09, 2015 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janah:
Well, Kannon, I feel that we as entities are much more than astrology itself! Also, I feel this thread and topic are quite "egocentric". Astrology is kind of a guideline to fully understand what makes one Who They Are.

---

posted February 09, 2015 10:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
I just realised earlier that my Draconic looks almost exactly like my Vedic chart. Is that relevant?
Does anyone know what that might mean?

---

What is vedic, exactly

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted February 09, 2015 11:20 AM            

As for me, I'm really having a blast turning up connections in draconic charts. It's like another musical instrument to add to the symphony of data...or perhaps it's the harmony itself...at any rate, everything sounds better with this component integrated.

ETA:

Let me give you some examples. My natal Saturn was conjunct my mother's Pluto-Ceres, very tight. Well, my draconic Ceres is exactly conjunct my natal Pluto. And my draconic Saturn? Oh, that's merely conjunct my husband's natal Saturn, and my father's natal Saturn.

Couldn't be karmic or anything?

Oh and my father's draconic sun was conjunct my natal Saturn...I should mention that, too.

My draconic Mars is conjunct my father's, sister's, and daughter's natal Mars. Again...
Dismiss this? It's a fluke?

In my natal chart, my Capricorn sun is exactly quincunx my Gemini Mars. Would you believe that my mother's draconic Cap sun was also exactly quincunx her draconic Gemini Mars? *AND* her draconic sun was conjunct her natal Mars. AND her draconic Mars was tightly conjunct my father's draconic Venus. On his natal north node. All this within two degrees.

posted February 09, 2015 01:05 PM            

My mother died Dec 9.
My son was born Dec 9, 9 years later.

Right there, you have an idea that, something strange is going on with them (especially since he was born early and no way did I plan that.)

Well, here's the thing.

My son's moon is at 7 Cap. This is where Mercury was transiting when she died. This is also around the midpoint of her draconic Pluto (0 Cap) and draconic Mercury (12 Cap). Since I don't have her birth time, I can't nail down her Mercury.

His draconic Saturn? 6 Cap

So, there appears to be some Mercury, sun, and Pluto involvement with these two? Well...yes...and isn't it interesting, then, that his draconic sun is conjunct her natal Mercury at 12 Leo?

Now, her natal Pluto was at 0 Leo.
So her Pluto-Mercury MP was 6 Leo.
My son's draconic Pluto 6 Leo
His draconic Chiron 4 Leo
His NN 4 Leo
My father's draco sun 3 Leo
His draco Mars 4 Leo

So, you see, the draconic charts emphasize a connection with his grandparents, connected with his NN. They are pointing to something that you can see reverberating through all the charts.

And it's just kinda weird that, if she had lived to see the day when he was born, her progressions would match his natal as follows:

Her pr Saturn would have been at 4 Taurus.
His ASC is at 8 Taurus.
His Saturn at 11 Taurus.

Her pr Venus would have been at 3 Scorpio
His Venus is at 4 Scorpio

Her pr Mars would have been 10 Aquarius
His Mars is at 10 Aquarius

And as I said his draco Pluto is 6 Leo.
Her pr Pluto would have been at 2 Leo.

posted February 09, 2015 02:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

What is vedic, exactly

---