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!