David:  Thank you for being kind enough to use
"smudge" when I would have chosen "blind."  You have
no idea how much I understand your logic which can
easily become the saboteur of imagination;  thankfully
suspended by Twain.  I want to be as clear as my
self-admitted absurdity allows, if one pays even the
slightest respect for language it becomes a no
brainer.  It's taken me twenty years, eight of which I
have become almost a hermit, to pierce the secret
shared by the likes of Shakespeare to Joyce.  It is
only now that I am publically  willing to play the
fool.  It is going to take some time for serious
scholars to wade through the miasma of language to
realize just why Twain spent his life writing about
the fool.  My god, how I wish to take this outside my
own pitiful attempt and share the sublimity that the
likes of Twain basked in.  Oh well, in the meantime, I
must expect the doubt and discrediting.  Soon, I will
release a skeleton key in which, not I, but language
follows no matter what route one chooses.  I will only
ask you to really consider that Twain would not have
traced the meaning of the names he gave to his
characters?  IT is the difference between the word and
write word! When you spoke of "lens on [my]
word-microscope" I couldn't help think of the microbes
response to the invader in "Three  Thousand Years
Among the Microbes" or for that matter all the stories
in Tuckey's "Which was the Dream."  Yes, as you
clearly stated, we must all get "past the point of
absurdity."  My hope must come to rest in that I am
indeed "disconnected" from thinking and not from the
very essence of thinking--words!