(urth) the prime calcula/his citadel and oreb

[Marc Aramini]

I guess I really don't understand where some of you are coming from.

All right, let me just say that do you really think the details in the dream sequences like this have no direct application in the text?  

What we know: Mamleta has black hair and 
blue eyes - a Hyacinth look-a-like, and we know that
Kypris loves Hy because of how closely she resembles
herself as a living girl, lets leave hair color out for now. From a 
vision on page 534 of Litany of the Long Sun, and really read these two quotes

"the woman who slept in the glass tube, the tube in
which he himself now slept beside Chenille, who was
Kypris, who was Hyacinth, who was Mamelta, with
Hyacinth's jet-black hair,"

on page 220 of Epiphany:
"The Outsider was the dancing man on a toy, and the
water the polished toy-top on which he danced with
Kypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too."

Here, the Outsider is dancing with Kypris.  Yes, in both dreams, Kypris and Hyacinth are conflated, but this is just straightforward possession.
This union of the Outsider and Kypris is recapitulated in the final talk Silk has in Exodus about love and its transformation into divinity.

I've listed these dreams over and over, and I just have to ask you does Wolfe really include them for nothing?  We know Chenille and Hyacinth are in some sense Kypris because of the possession.  Did Wolfe include these for PSYCHOLOGICAL REALISM?  If I wrote these dream sequences, knowing that I was the type of author to have a tendency from Peace to omit explication scenes, these would mean something and be provably correct SOMEHOW.

  Couple this with the strange feeling of being held by his mother while with mamelta, of her blue eyes, or looking up Mamelta's groin, how can we ignore that?  

I don't understand which details you latch onto and which are considered dream-like and extraneous.  Are the visions included for no reason?  Are they invalid?  How else is Wolfe supposed to hint without coming out and telling us, and ultimately, why should we read closely if these things are insolvably cryptic?  They aren't in some cases.

Can you figure out pig is a godling?  Yes.  How?  His claws.  Some mysteries are not meant to stay that way, and I'm only saying, though I am not a published author, when I write stuff like this in my vision sequences, its supposed to be applied to the work as a whole.  And I learned that from the parallel structures in early Wolfe novels like Peace, where a bunch of ghost stories told in a row lead one to conclude the whole story is a ghost story, where Mrs. Porter is Ms. Bold just because she is hot.  Do you really think Wolfe changed so much from solvable mysteries to completely baffling ones?  Silk sees his mother and father, and there are maternal language scattered all throughout the book that are invariably associated with either Kypris or Mamelta.  

Are you suggesting we throw out the dream sequences as completely invalid in detail?  Keep in mind that the stories in Peace could definitely be employed to explicate the entire work, from the jade pillow to the ghost stories.  Has Wolfe changed so much that these are nothing but random bits of falseness?