posted June 09, 2015 02:50 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemmi:
Hi, what orbits do you use in progressed composite charts?

---

posted June 09, 2015 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:
1°00 to 1°30 max.

---

posted May 20, 2016 02:53 PM            

The only way to 'progress' the planet positions of a composite chart is artificially - falsely - since you are dealing with two sets of planets used to make the composite (by midpoints) which create two sets of movements at different rates. The composite chart is a set of midpoints, not a genuine planetary starting place for progressions.

So the question of orbs is moot.

posted May 21, 2016 02:31 PM            

It simply does not matter whether your composite is a Davison or any other type of chart composed of mid-points.

posted May 21, 2016 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
Every type of authentic progression of a chart must first be rooted in a set of original planet positions -- real positions of planets in the sky -- and their actual original rate of movement over the days-weeks-months following birth. Otherwise there is nothing to progress, because there is nothing to define the rate of progression since that is defined by the planets' original actual orbital progress.

It simply does not matter whether your composite is a Davison or any other type of chart composed of mid-points.

---

The Davison does represent the real positions of planets in the sky. It is not a midpoint composite.

Also is the progressed composite not a midpoint composite of the two progressed natals? Not sure on this one. But it would solve the issue of it being impossible to progress a composite, wouldn't it?

posted May 21, 2016 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapriciousCapricorn:
Kannon McAfee,

what do you use for prognostics in synastry? Transits to composite chart perhaps? Do you reckon that works?

---

posted May 31, 2016 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by yungang_grotto:
The Davison does represent the real positions of planets in the sky. It is not a midpoint composite.

---

Incorrect. The Davison relationship chart is calculated for a midpoint in time and space.

quote:

---

But I personally wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them on these grounds, even if this isn't so... Many reputable astrologers have found progressed midpoint composites to be useful, through hard won experience, and apply them in their practices... Unless you've observed them in action over a long period of time and found them useless, to comment so authoritatively seems maybe a bit premature?

---

Give me some names and web links of reputable astrologers illustrating 'progressed composites.'

And by the way, I've been studying and practicing relationship astrology for most of the two decades I've been studying and practicing astrology. I use synastry. That is all I need, and all any astrologer needs. The use of composites is an attempt to escape the complexity of considering double the aspects from two charts. Its more work. So do it.

Composite charts are perfectly appropriate for two people committed to each other who live together, because the midpoints are based on the actual planetary positions of both their birth charts, and is a reasonable reality-based symbol of the unity of their lives.

posted May 31, 2016 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapriciousCapricorn:
Kannon McAfee,

what do you use for prognostics in synastry? Transits to composite chart perhaps? Do you reckon that works?

---

For a couple in a relationship transits to their composite is the best trends method to use. My composite with my wife has showed these transits have tracked our circumstances very closely indeed.

posted May 31, 2016 10:49 PM            

quote:

---

Also is the progressed composite not a midpoint composite of the two progressed natals? Not sure on this one.

---

posted June 01, 2016 04:09 AM            

Dawn Bodrogi uses progressed composites. She's the only astrologer I've followed in depth who I know uses them... apart from Ceridwen, who I greatly respect, though she may not be in it professionally, and others here. And as I said--why for goodness' sake would astro include this option if it weren't useful for a large percentage of modern astrologers??

posted June 01, 2016 04:12 AM            

quote:

---

Incorrect. The Davison relationship chart is calculated for a midpoint in time and space.

---

posted June 02, 2016 12:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
There is no such thing as a "progressed composite".

The only way to 'progress' the planet positions of a composite chart is artificially - falsely - since you are dealing with two sets of planets used to make the composite (by midpoints) which create two sets of movements at different rates. The composite chart is a set of midpoints, not a genuine planetary starting place for progressions.

So the question of orbs is moot.

---

posted June 02, 2016 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:
You can have different opinions and come to different conclusions, but please play nice and refrain from getting too personal and possibly insulting.

---

posted June 02, 2016 01:06 PM              

I agree very much with your post.
I also want to add that it is sometimes a fine line or tricky to find the balance between learning and expanding our horizons and wishful thinking. This fine line is obviously different for different people.
I am in no position to judge who is right and who isn´t or if everyone is a little right.

I do play around a lot with methods that is true but I find that I usually return to some basic ones.

I had a similiar opinion on composites as Kannon expressed in one of his posts for a long time (that they are for the lazy ones who do not want to do the work) and though they were artifical, until I understood what they really are or mroe so what they really show.

Granted I might be on the wrong path here, could be, but to me what DAvid Cochrane explained about them was very sound and rational and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I also have a bit of experience of interpreting charts under my belt, and I´ve come to see the progressed composite work as a good timer, especially (or maybe only?) if combined with transits.

However I need to modify my initial statement. The orbs in a secondary progressed chart need to be considerably tighter, at least if used as timer for specific events (the 1°30 figure is only for the process building in the background).

posted June 02, 2016 01:16 PM            

"I also have a bit of experience of interpreting charts under my belt, and I´ve come to see the progressed composite work as a good timer, especially (or maybe only?) if combined with transits."

I think they're most useful to me who am generally inexperienced with them when combined with transits (i have seen this work extremely well, and yes I agree that the accuracy of orbits must be very nearly exact with transits to and aspects within progressed charts. They're silly otherwise). But I do believe they can still be telling as a standalone if you know what you are looking for and how to read them--a complex matter, and different from a regular composite... it's important to learn the actual rules. And yes... it seems to me that you do test things thoroughly and though you experiment and perhaps indulge in experimentation (which I think is healthy--and fascinating!)... you return to basics and touchstone concepts and methods, and ensure that you are covering all your bases. This is part of why I respect your work so much, I know your approach is generally measured and thoughtful and very thorough.

posted June 02, 2016 01:23 PM            

"
EDIT
There is one point though I would disagree with you in your post, that some methods resonate better with some than with others. 
Astrological methods need to be valid and consistent no matter who applies them. The question is just how do we define their validity?"

I do agree with you. We obviously can't just apply things willy nilly and claim they are valid just because they resonate with us unless we are only using them for personal reasons and for personal gratification; then like any divinatory art it will be absolutely unique to that individual how they interpret the symbols. I believe in synchronicity and magic and am not entirely scientifically minded, in that I see meaning in things which may seem nonsensical, and take even accidental or erroneous evidence as an omen or portent sometimes.

However that can be dangerous territory and it's very important to remain rooted in the validity of the tradition as verified and built upon by countless people. This is part of why astrology rocks. It's scientific and magical atonce.