Composite Aspects that Don't Exist in Natals, Sun Opposite Venus

Kali

Well-known member
I'm really curious as to how others look at composite aspects that don't exist in natals. Specifically, Venus opposite sun. I've read lots of opinions and yes, I know that some people use the other midpoint and read the opposition as a conjunction. Others tend to take it as it is. I'm curious as to how you guys look at it and what your reasoning is.

Here's a composite with the Venus opposite the sun. So...what do you see? I can understand the reasoning of using the other midpoint, but Venus falls right on the descendant, barely into the 7th house. Personally, I see this placement as significant, yet even if we use the other midpoint, it's still a quite lovely aspect.

When you guys look at this, do you count this as a Sun-Venus opposition along the AC/DC axis or a Sun-Venus conjunction on the AC? What is your reasoning and experience? How do you feel this would change your interpretation?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5421.JPG
    IMG_5421.JPG
    104.8 KB · Views: 38

rahu

Banned
composite are the dynamics that two people create. you know that there are two midpoints so if you want to pretend a composite should format like natals then you can use the midpoint that is most appropriate. don't forget in a synastric comparison you can have venus opposed to sun, so whats the big deal, astrologers interpret that aspect and a composite venus/sun is analogous to a synastric sun/venus opposition. it seems that you are just trying to pick the composite chart to pieces. if you don't think it is valid then stay with synastry.

rahu
 
Last edited:

comdoc

Well-known member
Kali, I read it as the opposition. And, yes, it is significant. Midpoint composites are a strange animal--because there is no physical body there at the midpoint; in Davison charts, there is a planet. But there is a distinct difference between Venus conj Sun vs Venus opp Sun. Conjunction is the most powerful major aspect, and signifies the beginning and ending of the planetary whole cycle--while opposition implies a major midcycle challenge.

I'm really curious as to how others look at composite aspects that don't exist in natals. Specifically, Venus opposite sun. I've read lots of opinions and yes, I know that some people use the other midpoint and read the opposition as a conjunction. Others tend to take it as it is. I'm curious as to how you guys look at it and what your reasoning is.

Here's a composite with the Venus opposite the sun. So...what do you see? I can understand the reasoning of using the other midpoint, but Venus falls right on the descendant, barely into the 7th house. Personally, I see this placement as significant, yet even if we use the other midpoint, it's still a quite lovely aspect.

When you guys look at this, do you count this as a Sun-Venus opposition along the AC/DC axis or a Sun-Venus conjunction on the AC? What is your reasoning and experience? How do you feel this would change your interpretation?
 

rahu

Banned
Kali, I read it as the opposition. And, yes, it is significant. Midpoint composites are a strange animal--because there is no physical body there at the midpoint; in Davison charts, there is a planet. But there is a distinct difference between Venus conj Sun vs Venus opp Sun. Conjunction is the most powerful major aspect, and signifies the beginning and ending of the planetary whole cycle--while opposition implies a major midcycle challenge.

Midpoint composites are a strange animal--because there is no physical body there at the midpoint; in Davison charts, there is a planet

the ascendant and midheaven, vertex and Lilith have no physical existence yet no one doubts there values

the Davidson is an imaginary chart that has no astrological correlation.it is purely a mathematical construct. the only planets that have some value is the sun and moon. all other planets have retrograde movement that are not reflected in a davison.
I find it interesting that people are so attached to the davison because davison himself in later years express a degree of skepticism in his own creation
rahu
 

comdoc

Well-known member
Rahu wrote: "the ascendant and midheaven, vertex and Lilith have no physical existence yet no one doubts their values"

I understand your point. Although not every astrologer uses imaginary planets and Vertex.

"...the Davidson is an imaginary chart that has no astrological correlation.it is purely a mathematical construct. the only planets that have some value is the sun and moon. all other planets have retrograde movement that are not reflected in a davison."

I'm not a big fan of Davison Relationship charts--although some astrologers swear by them. Midpoints are also a mathematical construct. There is nothing physically there, either (in most cases; midpoint trees are the exception). Nevertheless, I personally do use midpoints. And midpoint composite charts. Astrology is full of mathematical constructs. For me, the proof is in the interpretation: if it makes sense, and works well to describe real world experience--then I use it.

I would be interested in your own views regarding near and far midpoints. See my other discussion:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95942
 
Top