posted September 18, 2014 12:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Exactly, that's how I see it too! The problem is not really whether the respective method is "right" or "wrong", the problem is understanding the method correctly in the first place (i.e. its actual function, proper area of application, limits of resolution, etc.) and then applying it correctly.

The danger lies in human psychology (i.e., wishful thinking/hopes/fears) creating a lot of superstitions around certain placements/interpretations that have no basis in what the method can actually show.

---

posted September 18, 2014 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
lol I agree, it is human nature to favor what favors us lol in this respect, perhaps there is a difference between optimists and pessimists: an optimist like yourself (and myself, for that matter) will look at the bright side and pay more attention to the good signs/charts; the pessimist will probably say: Composite looks more gloomy than Davison, I'm sure it's the Composite the one reflecting reality

But despite these subjective interferences, scientifically, I see no reason in preferring Composite vs Davison for instance, or Synastry vs. Composite, since they both reflect the same astrological truth from a different perspective. The truth is acquired step by step and each of them provides clues. There is a logical course to understand the composite is the result of the synastry, so even if you start looking at it starting from the composite, it is something to always keep in mind IMO, how composite charts are obtained. There's a major characteristic of the Truth, I'm not sure how it's called philosophically, I forgot it now lol: it can be approached from several points of reference (logical and scientific and realistic ones), but it remains the same. The same result will be reflected in the synastry, Composite, Davison. Our problem is that we don't know how to read them yet, but I'm pretty sure they must be congruent.

---

Yes. For sure. It just seems a bit more logical in my brain with the fix real point. But as you saw my composite and davison in the other thread you saw the same thing in both. I'm just not there yet in my learnings. So, I have to pick one (meaning one out ALL the variations, natal, composite, who know what else!) to start with.

I like your post about the cross. Will have to read that a second time. Maybe I'll come round to be less meh about composites after all.

As for which to apply near or far midpoint. I wonder if it would be useful to consider if an aspect is separating or applying?

posted September 18, 2014 12:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:

I once thought like you about the composite, until I read David Cochrane`s explanations of what a composite really is.
However actually we probably should do aweay with the signs and houses in a composite and focus on the aspect-gestalt alone, cause that is what this is about.
The result of the combination of both invidiual people`s aspects.

For example two people having natally Venus-Pluto-square in the same phase angle (either waxing or waning) will have this aspect in composite as well. Were the phase angle opposite, it would come up as conjunction or opposition in composition.

Also if there is a DW in synastry, especially using the SAME aspect, it will come up in composite again.

Hence a composite will identify the themes between and in the two natals, even if it should not be as apparent on the first glance. It all comes down to the angles between planets (even if it is not always a major aspect).

In this instance it also is of little importance if we take the far or near midpoint (though I find Leeloos explanations very worth pondering). Conjunction or opposition in a composite are a "pair", as well as trine and sextile, and the squares staying among themselves.

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

---

I'm still learning. So I'm sure I'll change my mind.

I do like LL's post above. It is interesting to see the conjs I have in composite turn into opposition in Davison. But as above, it's the theme and the yin-yang, etc. Very interesting and helps a lot understanding how it all works as a whole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Exactly, that's how I see it too! The problem is not really whether the respective method is "right" or "wrong", the problem is understanding the method correctly in the first place (i.e. its actual function, proper area of application, limits of resolution, etc.) and then applying it correctly.

The danger lies in human psychology (i.e., wishful thinking/hopes/fears) creating a lot of superstitions around certain placements/interpretations that have no basis in what the method can actually show.

---

Yes! This is what I'm learning and threads like this help me get my head around the concepts much better than reading texts. So, thanks for the discussion!