posted April 09, 2019 06:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dons2angelss:
Ok, I've recently been using the davison chart as well but I'm a little confused. Our composite chart has nn conjunct ascendant in cancer with moon in 7th conjunct descendant and sn, but our davison chart has this as well with the moon being in the exact same degree and the others 2 degrees off, along with some other placements that are very close actually, both charts are incredibly similar.... So what's this mean if both charts are so alike?

---

many are enamored with the davison chart . but the fact is a davison is totally symbolic. except for the sun and moon and partially the node, the davison doesn't correspond to anything real that direct ties the individuals together. the calculations are based on calenderical calculations not astrological calculations.

because the other planets have retrograde motion, their positions are not accurately portrayed in the Davison.

posted April 09, 2019 06:26 PM            

The composite chart is conceptual, never existed in real time and space. The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space. The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept. The Davison chart is shared by any number of people actually born at that place and time. The argument for using the Davison chart usually includes this fact… it’s “real.”

strange how logic goes out the window here

"The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept".
this assumes that planets do not have corresponding energies associated with them.many astrological philosophies include the concepts of ray emanating from the planets.it is these emanations that one can consider to be active force making a composite work.

" The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space."
the davison still uses a midpoint calculation to derive the "real" position. neither partner was born on the day chosen , so the davison has no reality pertaining to the individuals. the Davison is not a real moment in time any more that the composite is a moment in time.

but the davison is illusionary as I explained because the planetary position are totally hypothetical in relationship to the peopleinvolve.it gives real positions but they do not correspond to anything in the separate charts "

whereas the composite midpoint is a correct mathematical construction of actual planetary positions.

all I know is that I have never seen consistent predictions coming out of a davison, other that interpretation based on the moon and sun.
the sun is really the only symbol that should be the same as the emphermis gives the sun's mean motion which should correlate with a calendar.

posted April 09, 2019 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by todd:
site that turns this around saying the composite is not real and the davison is real... ass backward
http://www.elsaelsa.com/astrology/davison-vs-composite-charts/

The composite chart is conceptual, never existed in real time and space. The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space. The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept. The Davison chart is shared by any number of people actually born at that place and time. The argument for using the Davison chart usually includes this fact… it’s “real.”

strange how logic goes out the window here

"The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept".
this assumes that planets do not have corresponding energies associated with them.many astrological philosophies include the concepts of ray emanating from the planets.it is these emanations that one can consider to be active force making a composite work.

" The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space."
the davison still uses a midpoint calculation to derive the "real" position. neither partner was born on the day chosen , so the davison has no reality pertaining to the individuals. the Davison is not a real moment in time any more that the composite is a moment in time.

but the davison is illusionary as I explained because the planetary position are totally hypothetical in relationship to the peopleinvolve.it gives real positions but they do not correspond to anything in the separate charts "

whereas the composite midpoint is a correct mathematical construction of actual planetary positions.

all I know is that I have never seen consistent predictions coming out of a davison, other that interpretation based on the moon and sun.
the sun is really the only symbol that should be the same as the emphermis gives the sun's mean motion which should correlate with a calendar.

todd

---

excellent explanation ! thank you so much !

posted April 09, 2019 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by todd:
site that turns this around saying the composite is not real and the davison is real... ass backward
http://www.elsaelsa.com/astrology/davison-vs-composite-charts/

The composite chart is conceptual, never existed in real time and space. The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space. The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept. The Davison chart is shared by any number of people actually born at that place and time. The argument for using the Davison chart usually includes this fact… it’s “real.”

strange how logic goes out the window here

"The composite chart doesn’t “exist” except as a concept".
this assumes that planets do not have corresponding energies associated with them.many astrological philosophies include the concepts of ray emanating from the planets.it is these emanations that one can consider to be active force making a composite work.

" The Davison chart is a “real” chart in the fact that it is the chart of an actual moment in time and space."
the davison still uses a midpoint calculation to derive the "real" position. neither partner was born on the day chosen , so the davison has no reality pertaining to the individuals. the Davison is not a real moment in time any more that the composite is a moment in time.

but the davison is illusionary as I explained because the planetary position are totally hypothetical in relationship to the peopleinvolve.it gives real positions but they do not correspond to anything in the separate charts "

whereas the composite midpoint is a correct mathematical construction of actual planetary positions.

all I know is that I have never seen consistent predictions coming out of a davison, other that interpretation based on the moon and sun.
the sun is really the only symbol that should be the same as the emphermis gives the sun's mean motion which should correlate with a calendar.

todd

---

posted April 10, 2019 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bismarck2:
A good explanation, but there are still many things about the composite chart which don't make sense such as midpoints aspecting eachother, or how about midpoints OF midpoints aspecting eachother?

---

first you must considered that no one really knows why astrology "works".and then why do aspects work either?

so to question why one element of astrology works when you don't even know how astrology as a whole works.....seems a quixotic quest .

you have seen enough of my work to know that it works. so why question if my technique is valid when you can see it is?

that said.....
midpoints go back to Ptolemy, so they have been used since the beginning of western astrology.

ebertin's book a "combination od stellar influences" is the classic book for understanding midpoints. in that book he introduces midpoint of midpoints.

if you want to pursue linear reasoning then quantum theory gives a rational framework for "abstract" points to have valence.
the link below leads to a short explanation of quantum theory in relationship to the node, but the ideas apply to all astrological symbols.

essentially quantum posits that matter is not the essence of reality. matter is created from quantum "vibration" . nodes of these frequency appear as matter. reality is more like a hologram rather than something concrete.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63539

the explanatory images I use to explain midpoints are of a pond of water. two stones are thrown into the pond.each creates a wave. when these waves collide, another separate wave is created(the midpoint ) and if this new wave collides with another wave,again, another new wave is created.

notice that a midpoint wave can interact with a primary wave(the stone's) and it still produces a new wave.
also consider that reality is actually frequencies, that this is why you can make a composite of a natal chart and a moment of time.

replace the water pond with the quantum universe and you have the closest explanation of midpoints
todd

posted April 10, 2019 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by todd:
first you must considered that no one really knows why astrology "works".and then why do aspects work either?

so to question why one element of astrology works when you don't even know how astrology as a whole works.....seems a quixotic quest .

you have seen enough of my work to know that it works. so why question if my technique is valid when you can see it is?

that said.....
midpoints go back to Ptolemy, so they have been used since the beginning of western astrology.

ebertin's book a "combination od stellar influences" is the classic book for understanding midpoints. in that book he introduces midpoint of midpoints.

if you want to pursue linear reasoning then quantum theory gives a rational framework for "abstract" points to have valence.
the link below leads to a short explanation of quantum theory in relationship to the node, but the ideas apply to all astrological symbols.

essentially quantum posits that matter is not the essence of reality. matter is created from quantum "vibration" . nodes of these frequency appear as matter. reality is more like a hologram rather than something concrete.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63539

the explanatory images I use to explain midpoints are of a pond of water. two stones are thrown into the pond.each creates a wave. when these waves collide, another separate wave is created(the midpoint ) and if this new wave collides with another wave,again, another new wave is created.

notice that a midpoint wave can interact with a primary wave(the stone's) and it still produces a new wave.
also consider that reality is actually frequencies, that this is why you can make a composite of a natal chart and a moment of time.

replace the water pond with the quantum universe and you have the closest explanation of midpoints
todd

---

posted April 12, 2019 01:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dons2angelss:
I understand how each chart is comprised, I just don't understand why in this case they're so similar lol. I've been looking at the differences between a composite and davison with other people close in my life and in almost all of them, the moon, sun, and personal planets are in the opposite sign. This chart I'm asking about in particular is incredibly similar. If each chart is calculated using a completely different method, why am I finding such piculiar placements?

---

I got this too. Our composite/davison charts look almost identical.

posted April 14, 2019 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hikaru29:
I got this too. Our composite/davison charts look almost identical.

A lot of astrologers (incl Jewel) said they look at both charts. One of them said composite shows the energies in the r/s and davison shows more of the day-to-day reality. I haven't established if this is true because our charts are so similar except for a few aspects.

---