Dubious and Indefensible Relationship Techniques
================================================

This section concludes the discussion on relationship with an overview of
additional relationship techniques.  Although these techniques are widely
used and popular, their credibility varies from dubious at best to
indefensible to outright fraudulent.

Dubious Relationship techniques

     Linda Goodman's "Sun Signs"
     "Composite Relationships"

Indefensible relationship techniques

     Davison's Mid-Time/Space "analysis"
     Harmonics


Dubious Relationship Techniques


Dubious techniques are defined here as techniques that are misleading about
what they really represent.


1) "Sun Signs" by Linda Goodman

Linda Goodman's book is one of the most imaginative marketing schemes
astrology or astrologers have ever devised.  It is essentially a book about
"party astrology."  Its premise is derived from two simple principles: 1) "a
great majority of people do not know their astrologic chart," and 2) "most
people know their Sun-sign."  The book is an inspiration that indulges the
second principle in an expanded form: "since these people are also uninformed
about astrology, it should not be difficult to convince them that an
entertaining book titled 'Sun Signs' is the only astrology they need to
understand themselves and their relationships."

How does a book about Sun-signs become popular?  The same inspiration may
have envisioned scenes of boys meeting girls in pubs, taverns...  A man and a
woman meet.  They chat about this and that, and finally he asks, "by the way,
what is your sign?"  A spark is initiated.  Romance has a chance: "Why else
would he ask my sign?  Let's see what the 'Sun Signs' says about how we would
do together..."  The book is party astrology, because it hopes to popularize
astrology (and sell itself) by suggesting that astrology can be a mild
aphrodisiac - to imply and test intimacy - for common people on everyday
situations.  It is true that people will be informed about the
characteristics ascribed to their Sun-signs, but that would be it.  (It is
also true that the book has popularized astrology, more than any
contributions made by this author.)

The characteristics attributed to (each of) the 12 Sun-signs are actually an
amalgamation of the Sun in that sign, and the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars in
that sign... blended nicely together.  As with many other text about
astrology, one cannot refute the contents entirely, for this book is a well-
written concoction of "doubtful, credible, real, imagined, possible..."  The
Sun-sign characteristics, mixed with characteristics of other planets in the
same sign, are comprehensive.  Most people will see something of themselves
in the text.  They will also see something of their partner.  They will
assume that what follows next, the text describing their interaction, has
also astrologic credibility.

The text delineating "His Sun in Aries interacting with her Sun in Cancer" is
similar to the text astrology would use to describe "His Mars in Aries
interacting with her Venus in Cancer", except that the Sun-sign
characteristics are thrown in again and again in the relationship text.  This
blurs the differences in planetary characteristics and their influences.  It
also achieves the intended objective of making people believe that they are
also in the relationship scene.  Ingenious editing.

The type of relationship being described is not clear.  Is it an overnight
date, a "Roman Holiday", an affair, or a marriage?  "Boy meets girl"
situations can proceed in only so many ways.  Some of the scenes depicting
the interaction are so full of life that one suspects they are highlights of
actual relationships experienced by the author with different partners.  They
could be also scenes borrowed and analyzed from "Young and Restless", "Valley
of the Dolls..."  Because the scenes are so alive, they can trigger memories
in anyone, regardless of the Sun-signs being read and the Sun-sign one is.
(In how many different ways can any Sun-sign respond to a sad/happy event?)
While reading a passage about the relationship between a Libra man and a
Scorpio woman, images of my own memories with a Leo woman blended with the
contents of the text.  I almost forgot that am a Cancer and have no planets
in Libra or Scorpio.

Even if one disregards all astrology but planetary interactions, this still
leaves (12 by 12) 144 combinations between his and her planets.  If the
ponderous planets are also thrown out, there are still 36 possibilities
between his and her ascendant, the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars.
Either astrology is accepted, or it is not.  If it is accepted, then there
has be an agreement that astrology cannot be meaningfully reduced only to the
Sun.  Transits can affect one's being in so many ways that, for a brief
cycle, any sign can project like any other sign.  It is not possible to base
an entire relationship on (natal) Sun-signs alone, except in fiction.  (If
this is still not clear, please refer to Section 20 again.)


2) Composite chart of Relationships

"Composite" relationship analysis came into being in the USA in 1980s, when
the theory and practice of "Mid-Points" became very popular in astrologic
circles world-wide.  The theory of Mid-points  is the work of Dr. Reinhold
Ebertin of Germany.  He spent a life-time investigating this phenomenon.
(Dr. Ebertin passed away in 1990.)  It was first published under the
translated title "The Combination of Stellar influences" in 1940s.  Several
editions followed.

Dr. Ebertin suggests that the mid-point of any two planets in a natal chart
can be a source of influence, if the point falls within +/-3 degrees
(maximum) of a third natal planet.  For example, if the Sun is positioned at
0 Cancer 0 and the Moon is at 0 Aries, then the mid-point of these two
planets is positioned at 15 Taurus 0 (i.e., 45 degrees from 0 Aries).  If we
suppose that Mars is positioned in the range 12 Taurus to 18 Taurus, the
three planets become a source of influence.  The pattern is designated as
"SU/MO=MR".  The influence attributed to the pattern is independent from the
influences by the Sun, the Moon, and Mars.

Dr. Ebertin's analysis utilizes 13 energy sources, including the planets, the
North Node, ascendant, and midheaven.  Since there are 78 possible
combinations of any two energy sources and 11 mid-points for a combination
(i.e., 13 less 2), the total number of patterns generated is 858.  Dr.
Ebertin defines the influences for the entire spectrum.  The delineations,
especially some of them, seem to apply - to the extent I have studied them.

Several software houses in the USA apparently saw in mid-points an
opportunity for making profits.  (The Mid-Points, in addition to
Progressions, Directions, and Cartography maps, are one of the most abused
astrologic techniques.)  They began programming modules of mid-points for
relationships.  This technique became known as "Composite Relationships".
The module is popular among astrologers.  Unfortunately, it is also used by
many chart services, especially in the USA.  What is wrong with Composite
Relationships?

1) While the mid-points are imaginary points.  Their existence depends on two
   other planets that are "real" in the chart, and their significance depends
   on a conjunction with another "real" planet.   They may have implications
   on one's own chart.  It does not make sense to project them onto someone
   else's chart.

2) The mid-points, as interpreted by Dr. Ebertin, are supplemental influences
   in a natal chart.  Again, either one accepts astrology, or one does not.
   If it is accepted, then one must also accept the planets, not the mid-
   points that are derived from planets, as the primary energy sources.  It
   is preposterous to suggest that the astrologic potentials of a substantive
   relationship is determined by the interaction of 858 "perhaps significant"
   points on one chart and the same in the other chart.

3) Concentrating on the primary sources, a relationship already involves the
   interaction of (12 by 12) 144 interplanetary combinations.  Even if the
   interhouse distributions, "his planets in her houses" and "her planets in
   his houses," are overlooked, it is difficult enough to anticipate the
   implications of 144 interplanetary aspects derived from primary sources.
   The Composite-chart technique suggests it can interpret the interaction
   between (supplemental) 858 mid-points on one chart and 858 mid-points in
   the other. This interaction generates 736,164 combinations.  The exercise
   is absurd. (And imagine also the problems arising from their distribution,
   by house, in the respective charts.)  Apparently some astrologers feel
   that if they can program something, and it exists, it must also make
   sense.  Not the Composite chart.


Indefensible Relationship Techniques

As the heading implies, the following two techniques are absurd ways in which
astrology is used (abused) to analyze relationships.  They are sold as
software by at least two major sellers in the USA.

1) Davison's Mid-Time/Space Approach

Comment  The following review by the author appeared on Page 23 of
         the April, 1990 issue of the American Astrology.

Review

When asked, of course, all astrologers will claim to promote credible
astrology. But deeds speak louder than words.  Here is an example.  After
Ebertin Mid-Points became a popular tool of astrology, someone apparently
deliberated that if one has a good horse (i.e., "mid" of something), one
might as well ride it to death.  So the "Mid-Time/Space" method of Composite
relationship came into being.

How does this technique work?  It is difficult to believe, but an example
should illustrate.  I was born in Istanbul on 7/15/42, my companion in
Cumberland, MD on 8/16/61.  Accordingly, we are supposed to "analyze" our
future prospects with planets erected for 1950/51 (mid-time), and at a
location in the Atlantic ocean (mid-space).  There may be some use to this
technique.  It probably well depicts the character of a baby whale born in
these waters in 1950/51.  As for my relationship, ridiculous...

Apparently there is a semantic battle going on about the relative merits of
various astrologic relationship techniques.  Some astrologers praise the
advantages of the Composite methods, others prefer the Synastry.  This is a
spurious battle.  Both sides are promoting dubious (or indefensible)
astrology.  The names, "Composite" versus "Synastry", are irrelevant.  People
want a credible technique by which they can acquire some understanding about
the astrologic potentials of their relationships.  Astrology already has such
a technique by Lois Haines Sargent.  It is called "How to Handle Your Human
Relationships."  This title is less impressive than the packaging names used
by others, but is this not what you really want?  (End of review.)