Which method do u think is most reliable... synastry, composite, davison ?

[senzi]

which method do you think is most reliable in 'predicting' a future (or existing) relatioship?


synastry?
composite?
davison?


thank u

[astrologer50]

Welcome, have you read the 'welcone stick' at the top of this forum? It has some great explanations and links for learning the basics and study..

Predicting a future relationship is very complicated matter involving, Secondary progressions, Solar arcs, Solar returns and Transits....

The method you seem to be asking about is describing 'the relationship' which is fine but other more traditional methods should be used or looked at first.

The composite is the most popular though..
Composite charts
If you go to www.astro.com click on free horoscopes, go to Interactive horoscopes, go down to Astroclick partner, that will bring up a composite chart and when you put the mouse over a planet will bring up a pop up box with the interpretation......

But you do need both times of birth to be accurate though.. enjoy.

Composites describe the relationship, not either one of you, but what you came together to learn or to do and how the 'pair of you' function when together....

It be most helpful to ‘post’ their charts (rather than data), for others to comment on as we are all visual. For help on how to do this, go here http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12126

[starlink]

The composite is the most popular though..

I'm afraid I do not really agree with you here Astrologer50 .

I do however agree with what Kaioushei wrote here:

I prefer the Davison, since it's a real horoscope. I don't think the Composite is accurate at all, since it's a fake horoscope. Basically, you can have configurations in a Composite chart that can't really happen. Sun Trine Venus, for example. Can't happen, but they can in Composite.

Davison is much better. Since it's a real horoscope, you can progress it or get a transit chart and solar return chart for it. Good luck getting that for a Composite chart. Relationships are things that grow and change, just like the people involved in them. So I don't see how the Composite can really be considered seriously since there's no way to realistically change it up for predictive purposes.

And this was written by Dark Uranian:

Ive been told that Davison chart is more accurate compared to composite chart if you want to use them to analyze any relationship.

Personally I never look at a composite chart. I look at the two individual charts and sometimes the synastry chart.

Cheers, Starlink

[astrologer50]

Well I use transits over Composites and solar arcs with success....

I have just checked with astro.com and my computer program to see what the difference is and it's just 4' on asc and even less on MC. So unless high or low longitudes and Lat affect the calculations, then I really cannot see the differenece here....

strangly only thing that's moved is venus from cancer to virgo..

[wilsontc]

senzi

Originally Posted by senzi

which method do you think is most reliable in 'predicting' a future (or existing) relatioship?

I think the ability and willingness to talk things out and work things out between the two people is the most reliable way to predict any success in a relationship. If the couple refuses to communicate and interact...it ain't gonna happen to matter how "good" the charts are!

Relating,

Tim

[wilsontc]

senzi,

I also think the composite is the best chart for describing the couple precisely because it DOESN'T change. While people can change the way they interact with each other and how they interact (as is shown in the synastry). They combine as a unit in the couple in one way, since the couple is its own, separate "being". The couple is a unit completely different from the individuals, so it is not surprising to me that the couple makes new combinations which the individuals (and individual charts) can't. After all, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". But the couple, in acting as a couple does NOT change: each person can only control their individual ways of doing things, not the "couple's" way of doing things. So the couple is what it is, and that is entirely different from the individuals that make up a couple.

That said, I rarely if ever look at the composite chart, since it is something that nobody can do anything about. All a couple can do is work through their synastry issues together.

Coupled,

Tim

[Matthew The Astrologer]

Synastry, synastry, synastry!

A couple of cautionary tales about composite charts...

http://matthewastrology.blogspot.com...ood-thing.html

http://matthewastrology.blogspot.com...composite.html

[astrologer50]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

senzi



I think the ability and willingness to talk things out and work things out between the two people is the most reliable way to predict any success in a relationship. If the couple refuses to communicate and interact...it ain't gonna happen to matter how "good" the charts are!

Relating,

Tim

Very wise words here Tim, I also like....

In the beginning of Liz Greene's (famous prolific author on astrology), “Astrology for Lover's” book there is a good chapter on What astrology can and can't do.
“Astrology is baffling because it works. So, what in fact is a horoscope?
What it's not is a way of foretelling the future, or of determining whether that tall dark stranger will turn up next week. To put it briefly the horoscope is a map of the psyche of the individual. it's a kind of blueprint, a seed plan, a model of the energies and drives which make up a person. Because it's calculated precisely for time and place, it's unique, unlike the sun sign column. Even identical twins are born at least four minutes apart, and in four minutes the picture has shifted.”

**************
Predicting the future of a relationship as always should start with the natal, progressed, solar arc, and transits to see what's going on individually. The overlay one chart around another as work with 'aspects' and then progressed 'aspects' to see how the relationship is evolving, and then maybe go onto composites.....

[starlink]

thank you Matthew, this was interesting (even though the first example is quite gruesome I must say ). The following quote I agree with:

a composite can certainly give you some interesting clues about what a relationship wants to be, as opposed to what it is or what you think it should be.

I always have looked at a composite as an unrealistic chart in a way and one of the reasons being what Kai says:

you can have configurations in a Composite chart that can't really happen. Sun Trine Venus, for example. Can't happen, but they can in Composite.

I am happy for those who do seem to find it useful, but just give me the two individual one's any time

[wilsontc]

Matthew,

You said in your article:

a composite can certainly give you some interesting clues about what a relationship wants to be, as opposed to what it is or what you think it should be. And, come to think of it, this composite does indicate that Tricky Dick and I might in fact develop a functional relationship, if I was (for example) a member of his personal staff

I think you may have drawn an incorrect conclusion here. The conclusion you seem to have drawn from your example with Richard Nixon and you as a Composite is that the composite indicates the possibility (not actuality) of the relationship. I think it makes more sense to look at it the other way around. The composite IS the "actuality" of the relationship IF there is a relationship.

That's why I usually stop with the synastry. The synastry indicates what needs to be done IF the two people are going to have a relationship. If the two people can't pass the "synastry test", if they can't work out the issues between them indicated in the synastry...then then never GET to the "composite" stage. Applying this to your Richard Nixon example: there are too many differences and issues between you in the "synastry stage" (and even the "birth chart" stage where you look at each person's birth chart to see what each person is looking for in another person) so you would never GET to the composite stage. There COULDN'T be a composite for you and Richard Nixon since you and Richard Nixon would NEVER form a relationship (even if we put aside the small matter of Richard Nixon being dead! ).

That's why I rarely, if ever, use composites. They are interesting and can tell a lot about how the relationship works (as in your first gruesome example), but they are the END result of things and ONLY exist if relationships get past the "synastry test". And if the relationship is able to get through the "synastry test", the person(s) probably wouldn't be coming for an astrological reading in the first place! :rotflmao:

Drawing a different conclusion,

Tim

[Matthew The Astrologer]

Tim: I generally agree. I used Nixon as an example of someone who (had there even been the slightest probability of a "relationship") I would have a good composite with. Also, as a good example of someone I'd have a good composite with that, within 5 minutes, we would have been at each other's throats.

The problem I encounter, over and over again, is one where a person uses a "good" composite to justify a "bad" relationship... or so desperately wants a relationship to work that they constantly shake the composite in an attempt to make a better relationship fall out of it.

[gaer]

Originally Posted by starlink

Personally I never look at a composite chart. I look at the two individual charts and sometimes the synastry chart.

Cheers, Starlink

I do the same thing.

[freedomlover]

quoting: Matthew the Astrologer
The problem I encounter, over and over again, is one where a person uses a "good" composite to justify a "bad" relationship... or so desperately wants a relationship to work that they constantly shake the composite in an attempt to make a better relationship fall out of it.

That was a very interesting case study you made - and an excellent point! However, I would like to add this caveat: In reality, no chart is definitely "good" or definitely "bad". As you pointed out, there is really no way of knowing how the energies will manifest. Some charts show a greater possibility for the energies to manifest well. But the same lovely trine that implies comfortable, loving energy can manifest as a feeder line that goes along with the other's abusive behavior without questioning it. The same lovely sextile that implies harmony together can manifest as the two individuals will make the same bad choices. There is a higher and a lower energy available in all the aspects. It all depends on free will and each individual's personal state of spiritual growth.

FL

[gaer]

Originally Posted by Matthew The Astrologer

The problem I encounter, over and over again, is one where a person uses a "good" composite to justify a "bad" relationship... or so desperately wants a relationship to work that they constantly shake the composite in an attempt to make a better relationship fall out of it.

My problem with composite charts is that the ones I've examined that theoretically represent my relationship with other people just don't make sense.

My wife and I have an excellent one. But the composite of me and my best friend looks like a train-wreck. This is someone I first met in high school, roomed with in college, worked with in music gigs. We played pool together. We shared a great deal of our lives. And the only reason I don't see him regularly at this time is that he died, tragically, from a sudden heart attack--at age 56.

The composite shows NOTHING valid about how we connected or why we remained close friends for decades. No composite charts for me!

[waybread]

I compare both the individual charts (although not the Astrodienst synastry bi-wheels, which don't give degrees and are hard to read) and midpoint composite charts. I would read a Davison chart if someone asked me to do so, but unlike Kai, quoted above, I don't really "get" Davison. It is based upon a location, time, and date that don't exist for either person (it is an average of their data); whereas midpoints are based upon two people's actual chart data.

starlink, I take Kai's point that a midpoint composite chart can give an aspect like sun trine Venus that would never occur in a radix chart. But hey, astrologers use beaucoup derivative charts where such aspects happen, such as progressed and harmonic charts.

In comparing two people's individual charts, you can look at aspects until the cows come home, but I think the main ones in a successful **romantic** relationship (and you seldom see all 4 in operation) are:
1. suns in harmonious aspect (no ego conflicts)
2. Moons conjunct or ditto (feeling "at home" with the other person)
3. His Mars conjunct or in harmonious aspect to her Venus (rescript for a gay couple)
4. Her Mars (ditto)

Then harmonious or conjunct Mercury aspects are a huge help for communication, although some people are not very verbal, anyway. Jupiter aspects are a real "feel good" aspect. If somebody's Jupiter conjuncts your sun, you are going to feel good about that person, maybe even see him/her as a mentor.

5. Not everyone has an asteroid that matches up with his/her personal name, but if you find one, plot it on the other person's chart. Be sure to include cognate names in other languages. For example, "John" might be "Johannes", "Hans", "Jean", "Jan", "Ian", &c.

One thing I don't do is see where his planets fall into her houses and vice versa. I think we encounter tons of people routinely on the street, &c. whose suns fall into our 5th or 7th house. This doesn't mean that the cashier at Walmart is a potential love affair or marriage prospect.

I also wonder about the long-term viability of squares and oppositions. Sure, opposites attract, and her Venus square his Mars might be really "hot", but for how long, if they are not fundamentally compatible?

The midpoint composite chart works very differently. Sometimes you will see two people whose synastry looks horrible, yet their composite is very strong. Conjunctions with the sun, notably of Venus, are good indicators of love and affection. The composite shows people **as a couple**, not as two autonomous individuals who somehow have to work things out.

So I would look at both the one-on-one synastry and the midpoint composite chart, and then see if I can correlate the two.

[starlink]

To all, I am really enjoying this discussion!

To Waybread:

In comparing two people's individual charts, you can look at aspects until the cows come home

Oh man, I really liked this one!!! ha ha!

But with this I have another approach:

One thing I don't do is see where his planets fall into her houses and vice versa.

Recently someone asked me why it was she could not get away from an unpleasant girlfriend who was constantly harrasing her.
Turns out that girlfriends Sun was placed in the 1st house of the querent with strong aspects to it. So this was for me a clear explanation of the "why"?? I always look at planets falling in the other one's houses, it really shows a lot.

I think we encounter tons of people routinely on the street, &c. whose suns fall into our 5th or 7th house.

Yes we do, but we dont have an intimate personal relationship with them. Besides, dont you ever have this instant like or dislike with other people? Maybe there we find their Pluto (dislke) or Venusses (like) in our 1st house or aspecting our Ascendant or 7th house.

Sure, opposites attract, and her Venus square his Mars might be really "hot", but for how long, if they are not fundamentally compatible?

Excellent observation and in the long term this usually does not work out. I always warn two lovers of this fact. There have to be some really nice Jupiter (as you mentioned) or Moon-Venus aspects to counter-act. Probably good for sex but that is not really a basis for a good relationship is it?

To Gaer:

My wife and I have an excellent one. But the composite of me and my best friend looks like a train-wreck.The composite shows NOTHING valid about how we connected or why we remained close friends for decades. No composite charts for me!

Show exactly what I probably subconsciously have felt with composites. It just does not show the real picture.The individual charts are the best to compare.

[wilsontc]

gaer,

You said:

Originally Posted by gaer

the composite of me and my best friend looks like a train-wreck...The composite shows NOTHING valid about how we connected or why we remained close friends for decades.

The composite isn't supposed to show how you "interconnected" and how you "interact" with each other. All that is shown in the synastry chart. The composite chart shows the RESULT of the relationship and is best observed by people OUTSIDE the relationship. So it is possible that people outside the relationship (who "saw" only the composite connection) wondered how you could ever stay together for so long!

Compositely,

Tim

[starlink]

The composite chart shows the RESULT of the relationship

The result, mmm.... maybe "the impression two people give to the outside world". This is the only way I personally consider a composite chart. It is showing probably how two people behave publicly with one another, which can be very harmonious, whilst at home things are quite different, much more complicated.

[gaer]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

gaer,

You said:


The composite isn't supposed to show how you "interconnected" and how you "interact" with each other. All that is shown in the synastry chart. The composite chart shows the RESULT of the relationship and is best observed by people OUTSIDE the relationship. So it is possible that people outside the relationship (who "saw" only the composite connection) wondered how you could ever stay together for so long!

Compositely,

Tim

Tim, here is my problem with composite charts.

Let's consider, for a moment, two people who have Sun/Mercury conjunctions. Both are at about 15 degrees of a sign.

Person A: Sun/Mercury in Taurus
Person B: Sun/Mercury in Scorpio

The composite will show a Sun/Mercury composite position in either Aquarius or Leo. Let's also assume, for illustration, that the closer of the two midpoints (the one used in composites) is Aquarius.

We have:

Sun/Mercury in Taurus midpoint Sun/Mercury in Scorpio = Sun/Mercury in Aquarius

But the exact same composite position will be computed for this:


Person A: Sun/Mercury in Aries
Person B: Sun/Mercury in Sagittarius

The composite position will be the same sign and the same degree.

Sun/Mercury in Aries midpoint Sun/Mercury in Sagittarius= Sun/Mercury in Aquarius

The idea is that two people who both have such an intense Sun/Mercury conjunction, but in two different signs that are *either* show a great deal of friction *or* ease are likely to project the same impression to people outside the relationship.

I reject that idea.

A: Strong Taurus with strong Scorpio "composites" to Aquarius.
B: Strong Aries with strong Sagittarius "composites" to Aquarius, the same sign.

I don't think relationships A and B will be seen the same either inside or *outside* the relationship.

[wilsontc]

gaer,

You said:

Originally Posted by gaer

here is my problem with composite charts.

Let's consider, for a moment, two people who have Sun/Mercury conjunctions. Both are at about 15 degrees of a sign...

The composite will show a Sun/Mercury composite position in...Aquarius.

We have:

Sun/Mercury in Taurus midpoint Sun/Mercury in Scorpio = Sun/Scorpio in Aquarius

But the exact same composite position will be computer for this:

Person A: Sun/Mercury in Aries
Person B: Sun/Mercury in Sagittarius

The composite position will be the same sign and the same degree...

The idea is that two people who both have such an intense Sun/Mercury conjunction, but in two different signs that are *either* show a great deal of friction *or* ease are likely to project the same impression to people outside the relationship.

I reject that idea.

First, a small correction: I think you meant to say, "Sun/MERCURY in Aquarius".

This is an interesting point you bring up. A problem with midpoint theory is there is always the question of which "side" to put the midpoint of an opposition between two planets. The theory says it should be the midpoint between the "closest" of the two possibilities (i.e., the side with the degrees of the aspect slightly LESS than the other side, so if one side of an opposition is 179 degrees 12 minutes and the other side of an opposition is 180 degrees 48 minutes we put the midpoint between the 179 degrees side). What to do if the aspect is EXACT and BOTH sides of the aspect are the same size (i.e., if there is 180 degrees 0 minutes on BOTH sides of the aspect) is an issue not much mentioned or discussed.

Putting aside this major technical issue, on the face of it, midpoint theory sounds reasonable: when two people get together in a relationship the individual energy of each of their planets "meets in the middle" (e.g., each of their Mercuries "meet in the middle" and become a new Mercury exactly in the middle of each person's two Mercuries) and the relationship forms this new chart that only exists when they are together. But it does cause its technical difficulties in handling this theory.

I don't see the "trine vs. opposition in synastry results in the same point in the composite" as an issue, since the composite is NOT about the synastry but about the relationship considered separate from the synastry.

As in all things in astrology, I come back to my own impressions of composite charts. Composite charts that I have ran have seemed to show the relationship itself very well to me, and have helped me to see how OTHER people see my own relationships, as well.

My greatest challenge with composites, as mentioned, has been the usefulness of them. Even if the composite does show the "relationship itself", it is also unchangeable, and so people in the relationship can't use the composite as a way to solve relationship issues, but simply to recognize that those issues are there and are part of the relationship itself (i.e., they "define" the relationship). And, as someone mentioned, while composite charts are at least based on the charts themselves, Davison charts to me are entirely made up charts that are based on things outside the charts so I don't think of them as a "solution" to the problems of the "fixed, unchangeable" composite charts.

Relooking at composites,

Tim

[waybread]

An interesting problem, gaer!

In synastry, my Mercury in Aquarius squares my husband's Mercury in Scorpio (2 degrees orb). Natally we both have Mercury conjunct Venus. In our midpoint composite chart, we have the sun conjunct Mercury and Venus, which is usually a good indicator of good communication.

I would say we have a mix of both the square and the sun/venus/mercury conjunction in our marriage, which is why I like to look at both synastry and the composite chart. As individuals, we sometimes know what the other person is going to say before s/he says it, yet we constantly debate various issues. Normally this doesn't get heated: we just enjoy the challenge (square) of talking about politics, the economy, &c.

The big issue, however, is that my Mercury natally is opposed by my moon; and my husband's Mercury is part of a T-square (even a grand cross if a wide orb is allowed.) Well, catch one of us on a bad day, and it is easy to reactivate his T-square or my opposition. So I think it is important to look at both charts individually, to get a sense of what two people are like on their own.

As a couple, however, most days we get along fine.

[gaer]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

gaer,

You said:


First, a small correction: I think you meant to say, "Sun/MERCURY in Aquarius".

Thanks Tim, I just found the mistakes (I think) and corrected them.

Editing,

g

[gaer]

Originally Posted by waybread

An interesting problem, gaer!

In synastry, my Mercury in Aquarius squares my husband's Mercury in Scorpio (2 degrees orb). Natally we both have Mercury conjunct Venus. In our midpoint composite chart, we have the sun conjunct Mercury and Venus, which is usually a good indicator of good communication.

My question about midpoints (any of them) always comes down to the fact that the aspect between planets that are used to be computed for midpoints is not considered. This is also true for points, and a composite AC seems a strange thing.

Having said that, because I do so *little* work with composite charts, I don't know for sure that all people use ascendants and houses are used.

If they are, my wife and I have composite Gemini AC. Using the same logic as a before, since I am Virgo AC and she is Pisces AC, the result is the same as if were Leo AC and she were Aries AC. The midpoint is still Gemini. So I guess my problem is that I don't understand what that composite would mean.

The big issue, however, is that my Mercury natally is opposed by my moon; and my husband's Mercury is part of a T-square (even a grand cross if a wide orb is allowed.) Well, catch one of us on a bad day, and it is easy to reactivate his T-square or my opposition. So I think it is important to look at both charts individually, to get a sense of what two people are like on their own.

As a couple, however, most days we get along fine.

Looking at our composite Mercury, it's in Leo, and that makes no connection to anything I can think of. But worse, in the chart, it makes no major aspect to anything. In synasty we have very good Mercury aspects, looking both ways. If I look at the composite as representing our relationship as felt by us, it makes *some* sense, though it still seems far-fetched. If it is looked at as what people see when they observe or experience us together, it's just weird.

[wilsontc]

gaer,

You said:

Originally Posted by gaer

If I look at the composite...as what people see when they observe or experience us together, it's just weird.

Composites ARE "weird". And the challenge of them is learning a way to "step outside yourself" and see your own relationships as an OUTsider. Now that's just plain weird!

Weirdly,

Tim