posted June 18, 2015 11:41 AM            

Now it's happening again!!

Only aspect that is the same in both charts...my Valentine nearly exact in hard aspect to their Valentine

1st time it was conjunct his Valentine cap@8, mine cap@9, my IC cap@8
This time it's opposed, my Valentine cap@9, his Valentine cancer@8....my MC cancer@8

Coolest thing is, with the opposition our Valentine midpoint aries@8, sits on my DC exact. That was not how it was the first time!

Plus this time we both of us have the obscure lil asteroid "Armor" sitting ontop of our Valentines exact, so together we bring this Armor/Valentine to my aries DC, which is opposed my natal Pluto on my libra AC.
His libra Psyche sits on my libra Pluto, my cap Eros sits on my cap Valentine so his Psyche is square my Eros on my angles.
What a pretty Grand cross sitting on my angles axis, all 0-1 degree

posted June 18, 2015 12:47 PM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted June 18, 2015 01:15 PM            

I concur that it's a powerful influence. It's linked to one of our multidimensional patterns, and has likely had great weight upon how things have unfolded ... everywhere.

My VAL trines his INTERKOSMOS (3°) and, of course, opposes his exact VALENTINE-MADHATTER conjunction (conjunct my PSYCHE). Then my INTERKOSMOS parallels his VALENTINE. Curiously, my VAL doesn't parallel much of anything -- except for my TARDIS. Very indicative there.

It's a gentle, even weak influence, but my VAL is conjunct a very difficult conjunction of his: JABBERWOCK-HUNT, which really means next to nothing for most, but everything for us.

As to smoothing over all rough edges and healing everything? Perhaps eventually.

His sVALENTINE is 0°25 conjunct his sMADHATTER, which is 0°07 on ALGOL. The fact that this is 1° conjunct my sPSYCHE ... I can't say.

posted June 18, 2015 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orange:
I hear ya

My guy's Sun conjuncts his Valentine exact and my Amore sits on this conjunction exact to the minute. Pure adoration from both sides.
My Valentine conjuncts his Neptine exact.

---

That sounds beautiful!! Neptune/Valentine is amazing!!
Sun/Valentine/Amor is amazing also!

I should check my guys Amor, I know my pisces Amor trines his Valentine by 2 degrees and sextiles my Valentine by 3 degrees....

I'll have to check where his Amor falls.

Wow his Amor is cap@14, on my Valentine(not close though) but even more cool, my Lust is cap@14!

posted June 18, 2015 01:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
I had that with valentine sq Valentine but I was told the square made it bad.

---

posted June 18, 2015 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
I've got the opposition, very widely. 3°30.

I concur that it's a powerful influence. It's linked to one of our multidimensional patterns, and has likely had great weight upon how things have unfolded ... everywhere.

My VAL trines his INTERKOSMOS (3°) and, of course, opposes his exact VALENTINE-MADHATTER conjunction (conjunct my PSYCHE). Then my INTERKOSMOS parallels his VALENTINE. Curiously, my VAL doesn't parallel much of anything -- except for my TARDIS. Very indicative there.

It's a gentle, even weak influence, but my VAL is conjunct a very difficult conjunction of his: JABBERWOCK-HUNT, which really means next to nothing for most, but everything for us.

As to smoothing over all rough edges and healing everything? Perhaps eventually.

His sVALENTINE is 0°25 conjunct his sMADHATTER, which is 0°07 on ALGOL. The fact that this is 1° conjunct my sPSYCHE ... I can't say.

Does VALENTINE 'stop' ALGOL? Or merely 'promise' to heal it eventually? Definitely one to ponder upon.

---

posted June 18, 2015 03:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabby:
Very interesting synastry you have there, wow!
I love the Valentine conjunct Psyche that sounds very soulmate like!!
As for healing, yes I hope Valentine could overcome and help those hard/dizzying asteroids making aspects to your love asteroids but I think Valentines ability to do that has much to do with how Valentine is aspected in the persons natal and of course the maturity of the person, and the couple together.

---

:: forehead-slap ::

How ... the ... RIGHT! I completely forget how Valentine IS technically another incarnation / version of Eros. OF COURSE!

Ohhh, dear. So we have specific karma regarding VALENTINE-PSYCHE, rather than EROS-PSYCHE, as we have the parallel, but not the conjunction there. The parallel 'tests' us, to ensure we've truly learnt the lessons, and fully cleared the karma in other lifelines. But the conjunction is karma we're specifically working out here; it's been suspended until this lifeline, supposing that the circumstances will be right to work through it.

That makes sense, too. We have a parallel of ISIS and OSIRIS as well; his ISIS and my OSIRIS. He's already mastered the 'divine feminine', and now it's my turn. (No doubt, with ISIS on REGULUS.)

It takes a LOT to squelch ALGOL, but if there's anything to do it, it's VALENTINE. Not to mention, the fact that he came in with VALENTINE conjunct MADHATTER, conjunct ANTEROS and MELETE (my maiden name).

Seems very 'the buck stops here', fortunately.

His PENDERECKI/RILEYCENNIS Midpoint (which both represent the archetypes I've identified through various means that are operating multidimensionally) is conjunct his JABBERWOCK-HUNT ( ... not good) but conversely its far Midpoint is the VALENTINE-MADHATTER (which can be seen as very good.) Then, of course, you've got my VALENTINE directly on the Midpoint, which shows a kind of 'accordance'.

posted June 18, 2015 05:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabby:
What do you feel the interpretation for Janberwocky and Madhatter are? They play very important roles in my chart.

By the way this guys Coventry is on my Venus and ambrosia is on my Jupiter trined his Venus exact.

---

... that's a bit concerning to me.

Just a moment ago, I said, aloud, 'huh. We are Jabberwocky's rebels. The few and proud who've taken back our power and said, 'not this lifetime.' I wonder if there are others?'

And ... then you post.

Well, in the most general sense, JABBERWOCK is named for the Jabberwock, a strange, chimaeric being that's both hunting, and being hunted by the protagonists of Lewis Carroll's 'Jabberwocky' poem. None can say surely, but the title 'Jabberwocky' is a pure nonsense word, which I feel was conjugated by Dodgson (Carroll) for the sheer heck of it. He was like that.

It's tucked into 'Alice's Adventures Through The Looking Glass', which many people mistake as being in Wonderland. It isn't. It's Looking Glass Land -- another dimension of the multiverse, in which Wonderland is only one. The fact that the Hatter is in both (but with a different name, Hatta, in the latter) is highly significant, and Dodgson is identifying him as being multidimensional, along with the March Hare.

It's introduced at the start of 'Looking Glass', just as soon as Alice goes through the mirror (into Looking Glass Land). Dodgson loved to write 'mirror messages'; he'd take anything and write it backwards so that it could only be read in a mirror. So, it's no surprise that one of the key features in the sequel starts with a nonsense poem -- 'Jabberwocky' -- that Alice immediately identifies as being 'from a Looking Glass book' (meaning, it's to be read against the mirror.)

Of course, even then she can't understand it. That's key.

As she continues through LGL, she comes upon Humpty, a popular nursery character of the day, who just happens to be chillin' there, and expresses proficiency of literary criticism. (Another thing at which Dodgson's poking fun, always having felt art criticism a little goofy.) She seeks his interpretation of 'Jabberwocky', which he readily provides. The whole bit is Dodgson's commentary on linguistics, language, and how its fluidity, after a time, can result in its losing all meaning and becoming utter nonsense. He was very neologistic, creating many words in his works which continue to be in use today. 'Chortle' is one, as he was especially fond of portmanteaus -- which in and of itself was one of his neologisms. Heh!

The asteroid itself, however, is named for the monster -- the Jabberwock. Ultimately, Alice's understanding of Jabberwocky is minimal at best. 'Somebody killed something: that's clear at any rate.' (Sounds a lot like my multidimensional karma.)

But if we delve deeper into the actual Jabberwock, Dodgson is playing quite fair with Alice's interpretation. The poem is from the viewpoint of the hunters; an ageing hunter, it might seem, advising his son on how to best slay the beast. And what IS this beast, rather than a vexation upon generations? (Pay little to no mind to the latest Disney 'sequel' version, save for the fact that it kind of resembles Dodgson's original concept, visually. It's a definite chimaera, rather than dragon. Draconic, though, perhaps.)

Seems a joyous occasion; the Jabberwock (who 'came through the tulgey wood with eyes of flame') has been slain by the hunter's son, decapitated, actually, with his vorpal sword. He returns to his father, who praises him highly, and the two go off.

That's ... really about it.

We can glean that the Jabberwock is undoubtedly a monster, however; one that's tough to kill and has been terrorising everyone for generations.

The point of the poem has a few critical analyses; the entire purpose is to confuse and intentionally obfuscate. Words are used in place of words, either due to being outside of their meaning or having a need to avoid disclosure. So Jabberwocky has become a favourite of government and corporate bureaucracies, to the point where it's even used as a noun to name something that's 'intentionally confusing' or 'seems like nonsense'.

Nonetheless, the Jabberwock is a mysterious, monstrous figure -- possibly real, or purely imaginative. Alice never meets the Jabberwock; she only hears of its terror through the poem, referenced by others, or read directly herself, and of the unknown hero that slays it. All she can take from the confusing, almost nonsensical poem is that 'someone killed something', and that the Jabberwock is a terrifying monster.

We're kind of in that same position, trying to glean the meaning -- or true meaning, in any case.

What the Jabberwock actually represents has been debated by artists and even psychologists over time. Overall, they've come to some consensus:

Monster; guilt; physical embodiment of great fear or anxiety; something that strikes terror into us; The Big Bad.

For reference, the entire poem:

JABBERWOCKY

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

`Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

`And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

posted June 18, 2015 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmGem:
it sure does rock!

Interesting about valentine being another eros.
My valentine conjuncts his eros exact!

---

posted June 18, 2015 07:51 PM            

I can confidently say it means much more than we initially thought it did, and nowhere near as simply as 'madness' or 'insanity' or 'confusion'.

For one, scholars are mostly in agreement these days that Dodgson suffered from mercury poisoning, and likely had what they called Mad Hatter Disease. Sadly, it wasn't uncommon, and he was already on the schizophrenic spectrum. More than a pen name, Carroll was a bit of an alter-ego which allowed him to express himself more fully.

To that end, the Hatter isn't insane. He's not even called anything BUT 'the Hatter'. The 'Mad' attribution was added years later, perhaps as distinction for the character given his ostensible madness. Perhaps Dodgson was making a statement on insanity being relative, but he was surely engaging in Victorian social commentary -- namely how ridiculous he truly found it all (tucked safely inside of his nom de plume, rather than the Oxford don of certain renown).

So, a pervasive question has always been: what does the Hatter represent? As that's clearly for what MADHATTER (6735) is the namesake.

For that, we have to closely examine his role in the stories where he appears: Alice's Adventures and Through The Looking Glass. It's also of worthy mention that he never appeared in Dodgson's initial penning of the first story, titled 'Alice's Adventures Under-ground'. The chapter, 'A Mad Tea-Party' which serves as his debut was added in the version to be published -- and it remains a mystery as to why.

We'll go through the scene in-depth, but it's worth linking to the Sabian Assembly's deeper studies into Alice (by none other than Marc Edmund Jones) on it, as he does a wonderful meta-analysis.

To really understand MADHATTER, we'll need to read that essay and grok it. Fully.

Now, there are a few dynamics of the Hatter we play around with in our series, and I'll start with those. First of all, he's the last to speak in the scene, and is having a tea-party at someone else's house. Perhaps it's just the sheer personality of the Hatter, but it's become 'the Mad Hatter's tea' in any case, even though he's technically hosting it at the March Hare's house!

Well, that's rather audacious! He's also rather studious and slower to speech than the Hare is, but when he does involve himself in conversation, he's right to the point -- to the point of being considered impolite. (Remember however, Dodgson felt most of Victorian convention was superfluous and pretentious anyhow, and was always fighting a deep internal love of chaos despite his passion for order. He ... was a complicated man.)

Once the conversation gets going, all he does is riddle Alice. To me, the whole thing comes off as reminiscent of Lecter's first sizing up and 'trials' of Starling. The Hare, who seems, at this point, to be an easy cohort of the Hatter's is practically gaslighting poor Alice, as the two carry on as if her perception is the wrong one.

That's a crucial feature.

Funny thing is, they ARE using legitimate logical argument. (Again, Dodgson was a logician. 'Alice' is full of mathematical jokes and logic puzzles.) It all seems as if it's going to continue this way, but then the real point of the scene is introduced.

The Hatter's watch.

We don't yet know that he's a dimensional traveller, so this seems like a bit of meaningless fun; oh, it's a watch that doesn't tell the time of day, but the day of the month! Ha, ha! Never underestimate the wiliness of its author, however.

Dodgson was obsessive in his search to understand the true nature of reality, stumbling into what we'd now call the quantum world, long before Einstein theorised special relativity, or Feynman discovered the potential of quantum fields. But he had a strange certainty of multidimensionality, and explored it through his fiction.

So the Hatter's watch is almost as important as the Hatter himself.

When the Hatter asks Alice what day of the month it is, she responds it's 'the fourth'. (This is presumed to be 4 July, as that was the day on which the story was first created on a trip along the Isis at Oxford, in 1862. But that's just a bit of trivia.)

The Hatter bemoans this, saying 'it's two days wrong!' Then Dodgson breaks the thread to introduce ... LOGIC. The Hatter states how he 'knew butter wouldn't suit the works' (of the watch) glaring at the Hare, who we presume suggested it. It seems like any argument between friends. The Hare insists it 'was the best butter', and the Hatter reasons that crumbs got into it, because it was applied with the bread-knife.

There's nothing insane about this line of reasoning.

It's a mechanical device. Some watches indeed needed oiling, to 'suit the works'. Butter is an oily substance. Bread crumbs, or anything granular, however, WILL lock up such machinery. The Hatter proves by this that he's NOT insane -- he's just keeping up appearances. (Much like our dimension-traveller, the Mad Hatter Murderer.)

Now, after this seemingly innocuous, almost silly conversation goes on, (intended to be distracting) Alice raises THE IMPORTANT question.

'What a funny watch! It tells the day of the month and doesn't tell what o'clock it is!'

He simply replies, 'does your watch tell you what year it is?'

She says, 'of course not! But that's because it stays the same year for such a long time altogether.'

And the Hatter replies: 'which is just the case with mine.'

And Alice is appropriately surprised, even saying that she can't understand his point of view. Instead, the Hatter returns to asking her for the riddle's answer, which she admits she doesn't have. He then confesses there IS no answer. Alice quips by saying it's a 'waste of time' to ask riddles with no answers. And this is where we get a real sense of the Hatter is about; everything we've learnt thus far starts to come together very clearly.

Time is personified by Dodgson in the story, and it's stated, plainly, that the Hatter claims a personal relationship with Time. To the point where he can ask 'him' favours -- and control the time.

Yes. The Hatter has the ability to control the time. He's practically a Victorian-era Time Lord!

We'll see exactly what happened to leave him in the state of having a broken watch in just a minute.

In singing at a concert given by the Queen of Hearts the previous March, (it's assumed to be July now) he was sentenced to death for murdering the time. (Dodgson playing with puns again.) But since then, the Hatter claims that 'he and Time quarrelled' (that March) and now it's perpetually tea-time (six o'clock).

Dodgson purposefully leaves things a bit confusing, so as to play upon the mystery. Some he answered through correspondence, some he left, period. Such as why the clock's 'two days wrong' (remember, it tells the day of the month -- not the time of day; that's superfluous in the Hatter's perception and experience, and we'll see why later) or exactly how 'the time' was murdered, especially since time is Time to the Hatter -- and we know now, he ISN'T mad.

Let's move on to his next appearance, which (after he appears at the trial in Wonderland) isn't again until he's in Looking Glass Land. As Hatta.

This is all in 'Through The Looking-Glass', where we've already seen the Jabberwock.

Here, named 'Hatta', he's imprisoned for a crime he's yet to commit, as 'time works differently' in Looking Glass Land. Alice rightfully suggests what if the crime never occurs? And no one can argue -- but nor do they give explanation for what happens if anyone goes away from the timeline, or alters its events. LGL inhabitants have a memory that 'works both ways' and essentially 'live backwards'.

What's most intriguing is that, while the Queen of Hearts doesn't exist here, the Hatter is still in prison for something -- even if his identity is changed, as he's now a messenger of the Red King. Haigha, (Hare) is here, too, also a king's messenger, only intermittently insane. The Hatter is solemn, logical, and hardly his buoyant, riddlesome self as we met him in Wonderland. Here he's clearly himself -- but someone else.

This is where Dodgson was attempting to slowly ease into the concept of multidimensionality, which he'd explore fully in his last works, Sylvie and Bruno. But in the Alice stories, he's plainly playing with the concept, just more subtly.

We can't say for certain that the Hatter is aware of his multidimensional existence, but his having 'such a funny watch' that measures time differently, and a personal relationship with Time, in which he's able to manipulate it, at will -- there's good evidence for it.

It's going to take awhile to truly expect MADHATTER to give up its secrets. But, in the meanwhile, here's what I've compiled through my research:

Logic to the point of perceived insanity, or, at least, absurdity; literality. Relativity as it relates to both perception and time. Multidimensionality and time travel; coexistence in multiple states at a given moment; time measurement and manipulation. Riddles, confusion, what seems abstruse but is in fact logical when perceived differently. Experiences with the above. Potential ability to perceive such states or have conscious knowledge of them. Issues with time, time-perception, and misperception.

posted June 18, 2015 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabby:
Aubyanne, now you've got me researching Alice in Wonderland asteroids again!! Lol

---

Yeah, I may need to open up a new thread in Asteroids. I've been a Dodgson scholar for over a decade, and have read the Alice biographers and analyses extensively. It took me the better part of 2 years to compile what I have regarding MADHATTER, and JABBERWOCK is in its infancy, too.

But I'm ALWAYS researching the Carrollian asteroids in some respect, because it's a central theme to my life as well.

I've even been slowly devising a complete astrological system, geared towards multidimensionality, that utilises the dozen or so Carrollian asteroids. And, of course, with my work into multidimensional astrology, I use them extensively.

What drives me crazy (or, maybe it's a good thing, eventually) is that there's SO little information on them. And what bit I have found doesn't even take in the original works at all, and seeks to understand them completely outside of context. Augh! No. First we have to have a solid understanding of the source material, THEN we can test how they appear to be operating astrologically.

posted June 18, 2015 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GypseeWind:
My Sun is conj my guy's Valentine. I remember a few years back IQ talked a lot about this asteroid, but I don't know much about it.

---

posted July 27, 2015 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
As for MADHATTER, oh, boy. There's another that's taken quite a lot of work.

I can confidently say it means much more than we initially thought it did, and nowhere near as simply as 'madness' or 'insanity' or 'confusion'.

To that end, the Hatter isn't insane. He's not even called anything BUT 'the Hatter'. The 'Mad' attribution was added years later, perhaps as distinction for the character given his ostensible madness. Perhaps Dodgson was making a statement on insanity being relative, but he was surely engaging in Victorian social commentary -- namely how ridiculous he truly found it all (tucked safely inside of his nom de plume, rather than the Oxford don of certain renown).

So, a pervasive question has always been: what does the Hatter represent? As that's clearly for what MADHATTER (6735) is the namesake.

...The chapter, 'A Mad Tea-Party' which serves as his debut was added in the version to be published -- and it remains a mystery as to why.

We'll go through the scene in-depth, but it's worth linking to the Sabian Assembly's deeper studies into Alice (by none other than Marc Edmund Jones) on it, as he does a wonderful meta-analysis.

Now, there are a few dynamics of the Hatter we play around with in our series, and I'll start with those. First of all, he's the last to speak in the scene, and is having a tea-party at someone else's house. Perhaps it's just the sheer personality of the Hatter, but it's become 'the Mad Hatter's tea' in any case, even though he's technically hosting it at the March Hare's house!

Well, that's rather audacious! He's also rather studious and slower to speech than the Hare is, but when he does involve himself in conversation, he's right to the point -- to the point of being considered impolite. (Remember however, Dodgson felt most of Victorian convention was superfluous and pretentious anyhow, and was always fighting a deep internal love of chaos despite his passion for order. He ... was a complicated man.)

Once the conversation gets going, all he does is riddle Alice. To me, the whole thing comes off as reminiscent of Lecter's first sizing up and 'trials' of Starling. The Hare, who seems, at this point, to be an easy cohort of the Hatter's is practically gaslighting poor Alice, as the two carry on as if her perception is the wrong one.

That's a crucial feature.

Funny thing is, they ARE using legitimate logical argument. (Again, Dodgson was a logician. 'Alice' is full of mathematical jokes and logic puzzles.) It all seems as if it's going to continue this way, but then the real point of the scene is introduced.

The Hatter's watch.

We don't yet know that he's a dimensional traveller, so this seems like a bit of meaningless fun; oh, it's a watch that doesn't tell the time of day, but the day of the month! Ha, ha! Never underestimate the wiliness of its author, however.

Dodgson was obsessive in his search to understand the true nature of reality, stumbling into what we'd now call the quantum world, long before Einstein theorised special relativity, or Feynman discovered the potential of quantum fields. But he had a strange certainty of multidimensionality, and explored it through his fiction.

So the Hatter's watch is almost as important as the Hatter himself.

When the Hatter asks Alice what day of the month it is, she responds it's 'the fourth'. (This is presumed to be 4 July, as that was the day on which the story was first created on a trip along the Isis at Oxford, in 1862. But that's just a bit of trivia.)

The Hatter bemoans this, saying 'it's two days wrong!' Then Dodgson breaks the thread to introduce ... LOGIC. The Hatter states how he 'knew butter wouldn't suit the works' (of the watch) glaring at the Hare, who we presume suggested it. It seems like any argument between friends. The Hare insists it 'was the best butter', and the Hatter reasons that crumbs got into it, because it was applied with the bread-knife.

There's nothing insane about this line of reasoning.

It's a mechanical device. Some watches indeed needed oiling, to 'suit the works'. Butter is an oily substance. Bread crumbs, or anything granular, however, WILL lock up such machinery. The Hatter proves by this that he's NOT insane -- he's just keeping up appearances. (Much like our dimension-traveller, the Mad Hatter Murderer.)

Now, after this seemingly innocuous, almost silly conversation goes on, (intended to be distracting) Alice raises THE IMPORTANT question.

'What a funny watch! It tells the day of the month and doesn't tell what o'clock it is!'

He simply replies, 'does your watch tell you what year it is?'

She says, 'of course not! But that's because it stays the same year for such a long time altogether.'

And the Hatter replies: 'which is just the case with mine.'

And Alice is appropriately surprised, even saying that she can't understand his point of view. Instead, the Hatter returns to asking her for the riddle's answer, which she admits she doesn't have. He then confesses there IS no answer. Alice quips by saying it's a 'waste of time' to ask riddles with no answers. And this is where we get a real sense of the Hatter is about; everything we've learnt thus far starts to come together very clearly.

Time is personified by Dodgson in the story, and it's stated, plainly, that the Hatter claims a personal relationship with Time. To the point where he can ask 'him' favours -- and control the time.

Yes. The Hatter has the ability to control the time. He's practically a Victorian-era Time Lord!

We'll see exactly what happened to leave him in the state of having a broken watch in just a minute.

In singing at a concert given by the Queen of Hearts the previous March, (it's assumed to be July now) he was sentenced to death for murdering the time. (Dodgson playing with puns again.) But since then, the Hatter claims that 'he and Time quarrelled' (that March) and now it's perpetually tea-time (six o'clock).

Dodgson purposefully leaves things a bit confusing, so as to play upon the mystery. Some he answered through correspondence, some he left, period. Such as why the clock's 'two days wrong' (remember, it tells the day of the month -- not the time of day; that's superfluous in the Hatter's perception and experience, and we'll see why later) or exactly how 'the time' was murdered, especially since time is Time to the Hatter -- and we know now, he ISN'T mad.

Let's move on to his next appearance, which (after he appears at the trial in Wonderland) isn't again until he's in Looking Glass Land. As Hatta.

This is all in 'Through The Looking-Glass', where we've already seen the Jabberwock.

Here, named 'Hatta', he's imprisoned for a crime he's yet to commit, as 'time works differently' in Looking Glass Land. Alice rightfully suggests what if the crime never occurs? And no one can argue -- but nor do they give explanation for what happens if anyone goes away from the timeline, or alters its events. LGL inhabitants have a memory that 'works both ways' and essentially 'live backwards'.

What's most intriguing is that, while the Queen of Hearts doesn't exist here, the Hatter is still in prison for something -- even if his identity is changed, as he's now a messenger of the Red King. Haigha, (Hare) is here, too, also a king's messenger, only intermittently insane. The Hatter is solemn, logical, and hardly his buoyant, riddlesome self as we met him in Wonderland. Here he's clearly himself -- but someone else.

This is where Dodgson was attempting to slowly ease into the concept of multidimensionality, which he'd explore fully in his last works, Sylvie and Bruno. But in the Alice stories, he's plainly playing with the concept, just more subtly.

We can't say for certain that the Hatter is aware of his multidimensional existence, but his having 'such a funny watch' that measures time differently, and a personal relationship with Time, in which he's able to manipulate it, at will -- there's good evidence for it.

It's going to take awhile to truly expect MADHATTER to give up its secrets. But, in the meanwhile, here's what I've compiled through my research:

Logic to the point of perceived insanity, or, at least, absurdity; literality. Relativity as it relates to both perception and time. Multidimensionality and time travel; coexistence in multiple states at a given moment; time measurement and manipulation. Riddles, confusion, what seems abstruse but is in fact logical when perceived differently. Experiences with the above. Potential ability to perceive such states or have conscious knowledge of them. Issues with time, time-perception, and misperception.

---

Since there isn't a better more active thread to note this right now, adding here. As I recall Madhatter's 5 Sag (Alice 6 Leo on ASC), but with whatever talk of time and loves and more, also occurred to me that my Eurydike is conjunct my Madhatter, from 4 Sag's side. Eurydike, Meta and Semper occupy the spot, and as I recall you at some stage noted something about the "forever" qualities of such a love thing, through Semper giving more hope than what I recall you yourself had for your Eurydike in some charts at least.

So I'm going to take Madhatter next to Eurydike-Semper-Meta and let forever run for forever, IF getting the loved ones together forever that way as well - NOT an eternal separation from 2 Libra's IC-Orpheus.

I can do that sort of thing, I have TARDIS conj Pan-Isis-Dynamocamp antiscia the Alice-ASC (also Neverland 1 deg conj Pan&TARDIS, for more "differently timed" places?). Pretty infinite expansive powers for fixing timewonkiness any way I care for all I care. I'm also going to run with the antiscia of Eurydike-Meta-Semper hitting my 25 Cap Groom exactly, whatever it'd all do. (Too bad I still have to wait "forever" with bloody Penelope conjunct my Valentine. Siiigh.)

EDIT:

posted July 27, 2015 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Logic to the point of perceived insanity, or, at least, absurdity; literality. Relativity as it relates to both perception and time. Multidimensionality and time travel; coexistence in multiple states at a given moment; time measurement and manipulation. Riddles, confusion, what seems abstruse but is in fact logical when perceived differently. Experiences with the above. Potential ability to perceive such states or have conscious knowledge of them. Issues with time, time-perception, and misperception.

---