Oversimplification will get you nothing. Walking requires an action, simply being a symbol does not - mantling is for individuals, symbolism can be for anything. White-Gold is a symbolic imitation, it is not mantling, the chief reason being that White-Gold is static. It is not walking and nothing is going to walk like it.

Mantling has nothing to do with it - again, mantling is done by individuals, this is about symbolism. The symbolism of the wheel with White-Gold is a separate symbolism from that of the 'I', which is looking at the Wheel sideways. Your problem is that you're blurring the generic symbolism of the Wheel with the very specific symbolism of the I (not to mention that you don't seem to understand mantling as a concept for actors in a play, its not just generic imitation).

The Wheel being referred to is again, not White-Gold, but the universe-as-wheel. The Wheel came first, White-Gold was made to in its symbolism and in no way serves as a substitute.

And of course the main point is that its not just about having an 'I' but about the context in which that 'I' is presented. Looking at White-Gold sideways won't get you jack-[censored] because the contextual symbolism for the 'I' is not there. That is, White-Gold isn't subgradient so even if you did see an 'I' by looking at it sideways it would be meaningless. If you want to see an 'I' you could just look at the tower itself, but again, its not just about the 'I' but the context in which the 'I' is presented and White-Gold doesn't have that context (the context of an individual subdividing itself to infinity).