The Guru Ties His Own Salad

The problem is the inaccuracy of people's thoughts. For example, one man may think he it touching a snake, while he feels the nose of the elephant. Another man is thinking that man is blind, why does he get to touch the animals, while another man is thinking I must shoot that trespassing man witha a stragler dart to stop his breaking zoo policy. All three men are the same man. You see the problem with this- it's just inaccurate. For example, if the first man is going to make any sort of esoterical connection to the outside thought pattern of the cumulative masses, he must verbalize this bit of mental slime.
But how can he speak when HE CANNOT SEE?
It is this paradox in which we live- the art of the tongue is not constrained to the eyes, but it is the close brother thereof- so can a brother speak outside of his brother's will- no. Not in this realm of positivistic relativism. For if one speaks outside of the other, the two are no longer one, and we've already asserted that the are THE SAME MAN.
Granted, this takes place in the hypothetical setting of the "zoo" or as Heinsache coined- the THOUGHTZOO or EIGANEZXU in his native tongue/eye.
The answer would seem to rest in the person of the giraffe, who can lick its eye, this bringing balance to the situation.
Thank the lucky stars for this next question: whomever answers it comes from, You WIN.
Q: What is the best outcome for the laden- repose or dispose?
WHY?