(urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum

[Lee Berman]

> What I think we have is like the parable of the elephant and the six blind men describing it 
>by parts (it's like a "hose", "spear", "fan",  "wall" "tree trunk","rope").
 
 
>Gerry Quinn- If we are to take the parable seriously, there *is* a good description "an 
>elephant" which reconciles these varying partial explanations.
 
No, you miss the point of the analogy here. There is only a "good" description of the
entirety of the elephant if there is a sighted man present. Each blind man "sees" with
his hands and can never "see" the entirety of something as large as an elephant. A sighted
man can step back and see the whole animal.
 
Gerry, by setting yourself up as a valid judge of rightness or validity, you are suggesting
you are the only sighted man in a roomful of blind guys and their theories. Are you Gene Wolfe?
 
If we are attempting to discern Gene Wolfe's intentions (as I am) I would say only Gene Wolfe can
be said to be a sighted man, and he ain't talking (much). So, seriously Gerry, are you him?
 
If we are all not-Gene Wolfe here I think we are all equally blind men and our only hope is to
rely on each other. I see every other contributor here as sane, intelligent and familiar with 
Gene Wolfe. If I tell them their ideas are wrong I'm suggesting they are either stupid, unfamiliar
with Wolfe or mentally ill.
 
I am suggesting that if you have made a detailed study of the elephant's leg and know each wrinkle, hair
and toenail, I'm not going to dismiss your ideas because they don't fit in with my study of the trunk. I
think we should all admit that none of us have the capacity to grasp the elephant as a whole.
 
I am also hesitant to dismiss the loon who is wandering about, not even touching the elephant. His discovery 
of gaps in the nearby foliage might make his "hedge trimmer" theory at least as relevant to understand the
elephant as the theory of the guy studying the tail.