We can see that the text thus far, this section specifically I suppose, deals with extreme or totally contradictory aspects of going about things (e.g. intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism, etc.) Nevertheless both of these extremes leads us down a temple-less or at least a tainted-temple path.

At the start of our reading we see this duality: a EHrelated section, than an ETArelated section obviously to juxtapose the two and further emphasize the similarities in even the most extreme differences of lives. However, ridiculous, it definitely seems as if DFW's view of society (maybe what the book is about) can be paralleled with the classic political spectrum (semicircle) where idealistically fascism and communism can be considered direct opposites, economically there are many similarities and similar results (e.g. corruption) often occur from these extremes. These extremes are less different from each other, than are different from the middle (consumer capitalism) as both Hal and Gately are dealing with completely different issues in an external sense (one being intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism blatantly evident throughout our read). Internally, though, we see they both are dealing with addiction, they are both lost without a temple, they both competitive. Whereas the 'typical' archetypal man, although not yet seen to my knowledge within IJ, cannot relate with either of the extremes despite the fact if the may play tennis or they may be a janitor, that is they are externally more similar to either Hal or Gately.

As entertainment is also dealt with in extremes (where entertainment can include addictions). Although The mouse that repeatedly presses the button to stimulate the pleasure glands within his head eventually dies from failing to recognize the real world, one who enjoys entertainment casually could not fathom such an occurrence (outside of the world of non-human animals we can apply Joelle Van Dyne) whereas one who dismisses entertainment altogether (an intellectual?) can more clearly relate to this dedication towards one single 'passion,' if you will.

Regarding the book's state as a puzzle, it seems like its one of those ten million piece puzzles that you work on for a weekend away from home, never come close to finishing it, but nevertheless enjoy doing it. Also, the Eric Clipperton bit was seemingly pointless and hard to connect with the rest of the reading (for at me at least) but it (re)introduces this idea that there is so "much more" to IJ than DFW has began to discuss.

This was overall a quicker read, I feel it might of gone a little too quick and some sections I should maybe look over.
Peter