You seem to be confusing what I meant by more strictly.
Each of the theories you mentioned needs to be judged strictly on two bases: accuracy of modeling and utility. An allegory has other bases of judgment: its artistic/story qualities.
Thus it is more strictly judged because it is being judged on more standards, not more strictly on the same set of standards.
You had prposed that it be judged solely as a story and dismissed the need to judge it as a model at all. Thus you implicitly proposed the general thesis that allegory be immune from judgment standards of accuracy and utility. It is this that I am objecting to.
First, your lack of specificity as to what you
meant by "more strictly" does not equal "my confusion." When a thing is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. Were this is a legal matter, the law would require that your post be construed against its author since the author's lack of clarity caused the ambiguity.
Second, in all candor, you seem to be most willfully misunderstanding me. Whether you're vexed because (for good and sufficient reasons) I declined to answer your question, or because my allegory is at odds with some deeply held (albeit disguised) partisan view, or whether there is some other force in play, I cannot say.
I have not said that my allegory should be
judged "simply as a story." Else, why did I bother with allegory? Nowhere have I "dismissed the need" to judge my allegory as a valid model. I said it didn't need
defending. A thing can be judged without being defended. And most assuredly, I have not said anything in support this unsubstantiated assertion:
Thus you implicitly proposed the general thesis that allegory be immune from judgment standards of accuracy and utility.
Why would I? I have not and do not subscribe to the above notion, your stubborn attempts at attribution notwithstanding.
On the contrary, what I have said, ad nauseam at this point, is that it was my intent, in this specific instance and for the reason I plainly articulated, that the reader undertake to
judge the allegory for him or herself. You mentioned architecture earlier. Are you saying that buildings cannot be judged absent the architect engaging you in conversation? Seriously, do you require poets to write you in defense of their metaphors? Or perhaps you feel some special privilege here to pose interrogatories and demand answers?
If, by some chance, you are are referring me saying that my post "was just a story Richard, what ending would you like?" I suggest you re-read the entire post. I was being flip and said so in that very post. The whole truth is that I found your question off the mark, if not a little off-putting owing to a grammatical mood which struck me as nearly imperative in tone, if not form
You have persisted in attributing this phantom thesis to me despite my having disclaimed it more that once. I was disinclined to indulge you initially (as to do so was contrary to my expressed purpose) If such a thing is possible, I am far less inclined now as I am presently unable to convince myself that my inquisitor approaches me in good faith. Therefore, I will say no more.