On May 29, 2007, at 4:26 PM, adam watson wrote:
Have you guys had nothing go missing from the warehouses? The reason I ask is because I bought a container at the new IKEA here in Draper, Utah, and when I got home and opened it up, I was surprised to find nothing in it. It said nothing on the packaging about the container having nothing in it, so I think it may have been a mistake. I know you had to recently expand your warehouses to store the infinite supply of nothing, are you keeping nothing at an IKEA warehouse too?
I wanted to keep nothing that I found in the container, but I had to use the container to store things in, so there wasn't room for nothing anymore. The nothing I found is probably in the living room somewhere, once you remove nothing from the container, it's hard to keep track of. If you need me to send you nothing since I didn' t actually pay for it, just let me know, it'll help if you could describe nothing so I'll know that you did really lose nothing.
Thanks
A.W.
To which I responded:
Another good question. Since we have redundant overlapping warehouses encompassing the entire universe, then we by default get a little bit of everything in them as well. Actually, our warehouses contain everything, but we try to downplay that because when you think about the vastness of the wide open space in the universe, everything is like a pile of dust somebody forgot to sweep up.
But, unfortunately, IKEA is part of "everything" so, yes, it is in one or more of our warehouses.
Don't be surprised that somebody shoved nothing in your container because we keep nothing anywhere. In fact, nothing is in atoms, in between molecules, pretty much anywhere you can't put anything, you'll find nothing.
As for your offer to send us nothing back, you can keep "it", they obviously don't know how to handle their inventory at IKEA. Stick it to the man!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Q&A Your first "encounter" with nothing?
On May 29, 2007, at 4:17 PM, adam watson wrote:
Quick question,
In an earlier blog, you spoke of a reoccurring dream that you had as a child in the which you found yourself in a brown mesh tube (I'm paraphrasing) and you reached out and found nothing. Was this your first encounter with nothing, or had you found nothing before either in consciousness or unconsciousness?
Thanks,
Amateur Psychiatrist
A.W.
To which I replied:
Very good question. In unconsciousness and non-existence I found nothing for all eternity prior to my conception (which I don't like to think about). My first encounter with nothing in conscious memory was (when I regained consciousness) following an extended period of staring in the direction of the wall and seeing only the purest brightest white. It wasn't white, but that is the only way to describe it as anything. It didn't take long to realize that the best way to describe "it" was not to describe "it" as anything at all, because there was really no vision, thought or reality in my comprehension until the moment had passed.
I still don't know how it happened, and I never tried to re-create the circumstances that brought my thoughts to nothing that day. As for infinity and nothing, they are opposite sides of neither a coin nor the space that coin may have once occupied. And being that I always thought of life in infinite terms until that day (being frustrated by my eternal non-existence prior to the chance meeting of two gametes which heralded my emergence as a viable entity on the world scene), this knowledge of nothing new made the comprehension of my eternal nothingness prior to my eternal existence (in some form) with an as-yet undefined term of intellect punctuating my two eternities somehow more tolerable.
--Xymyl (KON)
Quick question,
In an earlier blog, you spoke of a reoccurring dream that you had as a child in the which you found yourself in a brown mesh tube (I'm paraphrasing) and you reached out and found nothing. Was this your first encounter with nothing, or had you found nothing before either in consciousness or unconsciousness?
Thanks,
Amateur Psychiatrist
A.W.
To which I replied:
Very good question. In unconsciousness and non-existence I found nothing for all eternity prior to my conception (which I don't like to think about). My first encounter with nothing in conscious memory was (when I regained consciousness) following an extended period of staring in the direction of the wall and seeing only the purest brightest white. It wasn't white, but that is the only way to describe it as anything. It didn't take long to realize that the best way to describe "it" was not to describe "it" as anything at all, because there was really no vision, thought or reality in my comprehension until the moment had passed.
I still don't know how it happened, and I never tried to re-create the circumstances that brought my thoughts to nothing that day. As for infinity and nothing, they are opposite sides of neither a coin nor the space that coin may have once occupied. And being that I always thought of life in infinite terms until that day (being frustrated by my eternal non-existence prior to the chance meeting of two gametes which heralded my emergence as a viable entity on the world scene), this knowledge of nothing new made the comprehension of my eternal nothingness prior to my eternal existence (in some form) with an as-yet undefined term of intellect punctuating my two eternities somehow more tolerable.
--Xymyl (KON)
Q&A Can you really know nothing and something?
On May 28, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Aryeh Lewis wrote:
My dear sir, I am as confused as a pig with no mud to roll in... as a cat with no litter... I am....... well I'm just confused.
I just don't understand how "it" is possible .... I mean.... you can't know nothing... and a whole lot of "general concepts" at the same time can you?? : l
To which I replied:
Now I feel like an inversely starving nothing burger patron who was just asked, "would you like something to go with that?"
I find myself wishing that you had said you were as confused as someone with nothing. But you didn't say that at all. Because that wouldn't be confusing at all. And yet you believe that knowing nothing and being reasonably well informed are mutually exclusive. I know nothing, not in the sense that I don't know anything, but in the sense that I comprehend the reality of non-existence, the ultimate void, the theoretical lack of contents in the hypothetical vacuum flask inside a lead box stationed between two black holes. Whether or not you get it, you should get "it". It's easy because "it" isn't. Whether or not you know anything, knowing nothing should be a "no brainer".
So, yes, to know anything, you should probably also know nothing. You may start by knowing nothing in the sense that you don't know anything. After learning all you possibly can, you might pause to consider the fact that nothing exists independently of anything in the sense that "it" doesn't. Your understanding of this concept (the reality of nothing) is something. If comprehending nothing is something then it is clearly not a contradiction to know nothing and things. This, of course, does not make nothing a thing, just the understanding or conceptualizing of nothing would be considered a thing.
I know that I didn't need to write such a wordy reply to explain this point, but I get the impression that with you "more is less". Here's to hoping something I wrote in this letter will help you with nothing.
--Xymyl (KON)
My dear sir, I am as confused as a pig with no mud to roll in... as a cat with no litter... I am....... well I'm just confused.
I just don't understand how "it" is possible .... I mean.... you can't know nothing... and a whole lot of "general concepts" at the same time can you?? : l
To which I replied:
Now I feel like an inversely starving nothing burger patron who was just asked, "would you like something to go with that?"
I find myself wishing that you had said you were as confused as someone with nothing. But you didn't say that at all. Because that wouldn't be confusing at all. And yet you believe that knowing nothing and being reasonably well informed are mutually exclusive. I know nothing, not in the sense that I don't know anything, but in the sense that I comprehend the reality of non-existence, the ultimate void, the theoretical lack of contents in the hypothetical vacuum flask inside a lead box stationed between two black holes. Whether or not you get it, you should get "it". It's easy because "it" isn't. Whether or not you know anything, knowing nothing should be a "no brainer".
So, yes, to know anything, you should probably also know nothing. You may start by knowing nothing in the sense that you don't know anything. After learning all you possibly can, you might pause to consider the fact that nothing exists independently of anything in the sense that "it" doesn't. Your understanding of this concept (the reality of nothing) is something. If comprehending nothing is something then it is clearly not a contradiction to know nothing and things. This, of course, does not make nothing a thing, just the understanding or conceptualizing of nothing would be considered a thing.
I know that I didn't need to write such a wordy reply to explain this point, but I get the impression that with you "more is less". Here's to hoping something I wrote in this letter will help you with nothing.
--Xymyl (KON)
Fanmail: nothing is better than porn
On May 20, 2007, at 1:42 AM, adam watson wrote:
Hello, I was doing nothing tonight on the Internet and to avoid the temptation to look up naughty stuff, I decided to Google nothing instead. I was very pleased with what I found, which was nothing. I was pleasantly surprised. Many people have told me "Nothing is more important than a college education" so I don't put as much effort into my school as I put into doing nothing. I'm bilingual so I can also do nada, which helps out when there's nothing else to do. Nothing is too difficult for really determined people who try as hard as they can, but for me it nothing is simple. If you break it down, in essence it's just "not" and "hing" and since nobody know what "hing" is and nothing is simply the lack of "hing" then nothing could be more clear. I must say thanks, thanks for nothing, if I happen to get some money maybe I'll order nothing from you guys. Nothing would make me happier, at least I think nothing would.
a.w.
P.S. I know you guys are truly dedicated to nothing, but I was wondering if you had tried anything? Just curious. Thanks.
To which I responded:
Adam,
Thank you for using nothing in a positive way. Using nothing to avoid internet naughtiness and outmoded educational constructs is highly commendable. We certainly agree with your stand. I think that more young people should stand up and proudly say that nothing is far better than dirty pictures on the internet.
As for the schooling, if they are really teaching you nothing, it can't be all bad.
I like your explanation of nothing, not because it is makes sense, but because it takes the "thing" out of nothing.
You asked whether we have ever tried anything. No, we have not tried anything in the sense that we have not just randomly tried ANYthing. We have tried things and usually have done quite well. We certainly are not anti-thing, but I know sometimes our pro-nothing stance pumps us up to the point that we speak out against things. Of course, some things suck. These things are terrible and nothing is always better than anything like that.
We have at times had associates who tried a little bit of everything. We disagreed with this carefree lifestyle because it left little time for nothing, plus, these people were mostly disease rich and hygiene poor. Needless to say, we often found ourselves saying phrases such as, "what IS that thing?" or "could you do something about that smell?" or another phrase that indicated that some thing needed to be done to protect us. And we're not about always having to take everything into our own hands.
I think you are on the right track. You seem to have a very balanced view toward everything. Most importantly, you have your priorities in the right order, with nothing fighting for the top ten places.
--Xymyl (KON)
Hello, I was doing nothing tonight on the Internet and to avoid the temptation to look up naughty stuff, I decided to Google nothing instead. I was very pleased with what I found, which was nothing. I was pleasantly surprised. Many people have told me "Nothing is more important than a college education" so I don't put as much effort into my school as I put into doing nothing. I'm bilingual so I can also do nada, which helps out when there's nothing else to do. Nothing is too difficult for really determined people who try as hard as they can, but for me it nothing is simple. If you break it down, in essence it's just "not" and "hing" and since nobody know what "hing" is and nothing is simply the lack of "hing" then nothing could be more clear. I must say thanks, thanks for nothing, if I happen to get some money maybe I'll order nothing from you guys. Nothing would make me happier, at least I think nothing would.
a.w.
P.S. I know you guys are truly dedicated to nothing, but I was wondering if you had tried anything? Just curious. Thanks.
To which I responded:
Adam,
Thank you for using nothing in a positive way. Using nothing to avoid internet naughtiness and outmoded educational constructs is highly commendable. We certainly agree with your stand. I think that more young people should stand up and proudly say that nothing is far better than dirty pictures on the internet.
As for the schooling, if they are really teaching you nothing, it can't be all bad.
I like your explanation of nothing, not because it is makes sense, but because it takes the "thing" out of nothing.
You asked whether we have ever tried anything. No, we have not tried anything in the sense that we have not just randomly tried ANYthing. We have tried things and usually have done quite well. We certainly are not anti-thing, but I know sometimes our pro-nothing stance pumps us up to the point that we speak out against things. Of course, some things suck. These things are terrible and nothing is always better than anything like that.
We have at times had associates who tried a little bit of everything. We disagreed with this carefree lifestyle because it left little time for nothing, plus, these people were mostly disease rich and hygiene poor. Needless to say, we often found ourselves saying phrases such as, "what IS that thing?" or "could you do something about that smell?" or another phrase that indicated that some thing needed to be done to protect us. And we're not about always having to take everything into our own hands.
I think you are on the right track. You seem to have a very balanced view toward everything. Most importantly, you have your priorities in the right order, with nothing fighting for the top ten places.
--Xymyl (KON)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Q&A Possible for nothing to embrace other concepts?
On May 17, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Nicholas wrote:
Would you consider expanding nothing into not here? That way nothing could be considered no where and make nothing a bit more elusive for the non-initiated seeker of nothing knowledge. Not to mention the economic boom such an expansion could bring.
If you should adopt my very detailed nowhere plan I would have to charge my normal consultation fee based upon a sliding scale of zero increments. I expect that the cost for this endeavor should fall between zero and nothing dollars.
Yours truly,
Nicholas Parrella
To which I responded:
Nicholas,
Thanks for the suggestion, and we appreciate your desire to obscure nothing from the comprehension of the general public but we are all about education. We WANT people to know nothing, we don't want to confuse them. Okay, we want to confuse some of them, but we certainly don't want to confuse all of them or ourselves. This idea of yours is so confusing that if we tried to somehow incorporate it with nothing as part of our campaign, it may negate the quality of nothing in the sense that it may assign a value to nothing thus making it seem to be the opposite of something in a very literal way, thus making education about nothing pretty much pointless.
I fail to see how this idea of yours, while intriguing, could have a positive economic impact.
So, I regret to inform you that we will not be incorporating your nothing/not here fusion scheme. We will, however, respect your fee scale as we understand(?) it and pay you zero dollars for your time. Expect a check.
Please keep up your interest in nothing, and try not to thwart the others who want to know nothing too.
--Xymyl (KON)
Would you consider expanding nothing into not here? That way nothing could be considered no where and make nothing a bit more elusive for the non-initiated seeker of nothing knowledge. Not to mention the economic boom such an expansion could bring.
If you should adopt my very detailed nowhere plan I would have to charge my normal consultation fee based upon a sliding scale of zero increments. I expect that the cost for this endeavor should fall between zero and nothing dollars.
Yours truly,
Nicholas Parrella
To which I responded:
Nicholas,
Thanks for the suggestion, and we appreciate your desire to obscure nothing from the comprehension of the general public but we are all about education. We WANT people to know nothing, we don't want to confuse them. Okay, we want to confuse some of them, but we certainly don't want to confuse all of them or ourselves. This idea of yours is so confusing that if we tried to somehow incorporate it with nothing as part of our campaign, it may negate the quality of nothing in the sense that it may assign a value to nothing thus making it seem to be the opposite of something in a very literal way, thus making education about nothing pretty much pointless.
I fail to see how this idea of yours, while intriguing, could have a positive economic impact.
So, I regret to inform you that we will not be incorporating your nothing/not here fusion scheme. We will, however, respect your fee scale as we understand(?) it and pay you zero dollars for your time. Expect a check.
Please keep up your interest in nothing, and try not to thwart the others who want to know nothing too.
--Xymyl (KON)
Q&A Confused yet?
On May 25, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Dead Psycho wrote:
for nothing to really exist you need something, else there would be nothing to call nothing. so if in the absence of something you have nothing then you must really have something to call nothing.
confused yet?
let me continue just to clarify.
say i had something (i don't know what because i haven't thought of that yet, nothing came to mind). and i lost it. would i really have nothing instead. or would i have the absence of something which is actually something itself which you could call nothing, but as nothing is actually something nothing really exists.
have fun.
all the best
Dead psycho
To which I replied:
Hi Dead Psycho, thanks for your comments.
I made a valiant attempt to be confused by your assertion that nothing requires something in order to exist. Unfortunately I was unable to find any way to become confused by your platform for debate, leaving me no choice but to totally own you. Of course the ownership of which I speak is merely metaphorical and will hopefully not have any bearing on aspects of your life beyond the scope of this rebuttal.
First of all, you tear down your entire argument in your initial statement which says, "for nothing to really exist you need something, else there would be nothing to call nothing."
As for the existence of nothing, we have held firmly to the fact that nothing exists in the sense that "it" doesn't. Yes, there are many other uses of the *word* nothing (which is something), which have to do with something, but that doesn't make nothing something. It is true that there must be something (intelligent life) to comprehend nothing, but comprehension is far from necessary for nothing to exist.
As for the lack of something leaving us nothing to call nothing, we have already established that the lack of something would really leave us nobody to call nothing nothing, or nothing to call nothing nothing. Which I might point out shows (even with your own flawed logic) that nothing would still exist in the absence of something. However, this is really the only place (this issue of perception) in which your case holds some small merit. You seem to believe that people must comprehend and label nothing in order for "it" to exist. Yes, in order for people to comprehend nothing there must be 1) People, and 2) something to use as a label to draw a line between the concepts of nothing and anything. But this idea is based on the assumption that perception changes a thing or indeed changes nothing.
There are documented cases where perception changes nothing but only in the sense that it does not change anything except the person who has developed the perception. Certainly, nothing (the real nothing that exists in the sense that "it" doesn't) has not been changed in the slightest by perception. Although it is true to say that at times something has been changed by perception, this doesn't tie it to my previous statement because something and nothing are not necessarily related, as you might expect due to the fact that they are not usually opposites and certainly not mutually exclusive. Something may be able to displace nothing (this is a point of great debate), nothing may be able to replace something (this is also hotly debated), but nothing cannot negate something in any equation. See my "Volley Nothing" blog posting on February 3rd 2007 for further details. http://xymyl.blogspot.com/2007/02/q-volley-nothing.html for more information regarding acceptable use of nothing as an opposite of something.
This idea that one thing or indeed nothing needs something to bring it (or "it") into existence is a just a rip off of the old chicken and egg argument. I will reiterate that the word nothing required something or someone to coin that word, but that word is unnecessary if nothing exists in the sense that everything doesn't. As for the chicken or the egg argument, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I had an answer for that simple argument when I was an 8 year old chicken farmer. The birds that are today called chickens were derived primarily from Red Jungle Fowl and at times interbred with other fowl. The fact that selective breeding has been used to develop the various strains of chickens that exist throughout the world means that there was a point of divergence from it's ancestral form at which it began to be called "chicken". This chicken would have arrived via the egg which was produced from parents that were closer to the original characteristics of the main progenitors. Being that the resultant chicken would be markedly different from its parents and would arrive via the egg, we have to conclude that the egg came first because that first chicken had parents that were either Red Jungle Fowl or an intermediate form. Sorry for the wordiness, just wanted to make it clear.
As for your question regarding the absence of something, yes, you could say that you have the absence of something, which would be a true opposite of something and thus is also something. To say you have nothing when you lose something is more of a figure of speech than a literal statement, but it can be appropriate to use such a term if all or almost all of the specific category of something to which you were referring had been mislaid.
Of course, nothing isn't.
--Xymyl (KON)
for nothing to really exist you need something, else there would be nothing to call nothing. so if in the absence of something you have nothing then you must really have something to call nothing.
confused yet?
let me continue just to clarify.
say i had something (i don't know what because i haven't thought of that yet, nothing came to mind). and i lost it. would i really have nothing instead. or would i have the absence of something which is actually something itself which you could call nothing, but as nothing is actually something nothing really exists.
have fun.
all the best
Dead psycho
To which I replied:
Hi Dead Psycho, thanks for your comments.
I made a valiant attempt to be confused by your assertion that nothing requires something in order to exist. Unfortunately I was unable to find any way to become confused by your platform for debate, leaving me no choice but to totally own you. Of course the ownership of which I speak is merely metaphorical and will hopefully not have any bearing on aspects of your life beyond the scope of this rebuttal.
First of all, you tear down your entire argument in your initial statement which says, "for nothing to really exist you need something, else there would be nothing to call nothing."
As for the existence of nothing, we have held firmly to the fact that nothing exists in the sense that "it" doesn't. Yes, there are many other uses of the *word* nothing (which is something), which have to do with something, but that doesn't make nothing something. It is true that there must be something (intelligent life) to comprehend nothing, but comprehension is far from necessary for nothing to exist.
As for the lack of something leaving us nothing to call nothing, we have already established that the lack of something would really leave us nobody to call nothing nothing, or nothing to call nothing nothing. Which I might point out shows (even with your own flawed logic) that nothing would still exist in the absence of something. However, this is really the only place (this issue of perception) in which your case holds some small merit. You seem to believe that people must comprehend and label nothing in order for "it" to exist. Yes, in order for people to comprehend nothing there must be 1) People, and 2) something to use as a label to draw a line between the concepts of nothing and anything. But this idea is based on the assumption that perception changes a thing or indeed changes nothing.
There are documented cases where perception changes nothing but only in the sense that it does not change anything except the person who has developed the perception. Certainly, nothing (the real nothing that exists in the sense that "it" doesn't) has not been changed in the slightest by perception. Although it is true to say that at times something has been changed by perception, this doesn't tie it to my previous statement because something and nothing are not necessarily related, as you might expect due to the fact that they are not usually opposites and certainly not mutually exclusive. Something may be able to displace nothing (this is a point of great debate), nothing may be able to replace something (this is also hotly debated), but nothing cannot negate something in any equation. See my "Volley Nothing" blog posting on February 3rd 2007 for further details. http://xymyl.blogspot.com/2007/02/q-volley-nothing.html for more information regarding acceptable use of nothing as an opposite of something.
This idea that one thing or indeed nothing needs something to bring it (or "it") into existence is a just a rip off of the old chicken and egg argument. I will reiterate that the word nothing required something or someone to coin that word, but that word is unnecessary if nothing exists in the sense that everything doesn't. As for the chicken or the egg argument, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I had an answer for that simple argument when I was an 8 year old chicken farmer. The birds that are today called chickens were derived primarily from Red Jungle Fowl and at times interbred with other fowl. The fact that selective breeding has been used to develop the various strains of chickens that exist throughout the world means that there was a point of divergence from it's ancestral form at which it began to be called "chicken". This chicken would have arrived via the egg which was produced from parents that were closer to the original characteristics of the main progenitors. Being that the resultant chicken would be markedly different from its parents and would arrive via the egg, we have to conclude that the egg came first because that first chicken had parents that were either Red Jungle Fowl or an intermediate form. Sorry for the wordiness, just wanted to make it clear.
As for your question regarding the absence of something, yes, you could say that you have the absence of something, which would be a true opposite of something and thus is also something. To say you have nothing when you lose something is more of a figure of speech than a literal statement, but it can be appropriate to use such a term if all or almost all of the specific category of something to which you were referring had been mislaid.
Of course, nothing isn't.
--Xymyl (KON)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Fanmail: Hypocrisy expert?
On May 24, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Aryeh Lewis wrote:
I've been reading your blog for quite some time now, ever since you called me a maniac for laughing manically (naturally... because that kind of caused me to laugh manically once again).
Anyways, I just would like to let you know that I have, as of today, come to the final conclusion that your entire company ought to be sued for the biggest load of hypocrisy I've ever seen!!!
I mean... you're not actually an expert in nothing! You're an expert in making people laugh hysterically, and double antangeras, and heck! You could even run for president with your languistic skills! You're not a nothing expert at ALL! You're in fact, an expert on so many somethings that I must say... you really deserve to be put in prison for stealing all that money from all those fools who believed you to actually know nothing!
That said, I think I'ld like to order nothing and a book about "it." :)
To which I replied:
Thank you for your kind words and your insults.
Yes, it would appear that I am no expert on nothing because it often appears that I do indeed know everything. I want to point out that I do not know everything. I have a good grasp of many general concepts and I am awesome. But this doesn't make me an expert on everything, just awesome, that's all.
Just because I happen to know something and be awesome doesn't preclude my ability to know nothing. In fact, nothing is actually enhanced by my knowledge and awesomeness, because how could "it" be?
I hope that this clears up the confusion you had regarding my non-expert status. But I hope that the restoration of my credibility in your eyes does not dissuade you from buying nothing from me.
Thanks again.
--Xymyl (KON)
I've been reading your blog for quite some time now, ever since you called me a maniac for laughing manically (naturally... because that kind of caused me to laugh manically once again).
Anyways, I just would like to let you know that I have, as of today, come to the final conclusion that your entire company ought to be sued for the biggest load of hypocrisy I've ever seen!!!
I mean... you're not actually an expert in nothing! You're an expert in making people laugh hysterically, and double antangeras, and heck! You could even run for president with your languistic skills! You're not a nothing expert at ALL! You're in fact, an expert on so many somethings that I must say... you really deserve to be put in prison for stealing all that money from all those fools who believed you to actually know nothing!
That said, I think I'ld like to order nothing and a book about "it." :)
To which I replied:
Thank you for your kind words and your insults.
Yes, it would appear that I am no expert on nothing because it often appears that I do indeed know everything. I want to point out that I do not know everything. I have a good grasp of many general concepts and I am awesome. But this doesn't make me an expert on everything, just awesome, that's all.
Just because I happen to know something and be awesome doesn't preclude my ability to know nothing. In fact, nothing is actually enhanced by my knowledge and awesomeness, because how could "it" be?
I hope that this clears up the confusion you had regarding my non-expert status. But I hope that the restoration of my credibility in your eyes does not dissuade you from buying nothing from me.
Thanks again.
--Xymyl (KON)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Q&A Much ado about Matrix Reloaded...
On May 18, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Richard wrote:
Dear Sir,
I just watched the Matrix Reloaded, and it occured to me that it is nothing.
Nothing was said. Nothing occurred. Often characters (if there were
any) acted, and those actions changed nothing and meant nothing. For
Neo, who was nothing, nothing seemed to be able to stop him from his
relentless pursuit of nothing. It was great the way he saved Trinity
in the end so that together they could do nothing.
I really empathised with the characters. They seemed to feel nothing
and when I watched the film I felt nothing too.
My question is: what exactly was being 'reloaded' if the result was
nothing? If nothing squared equals nothing, that is indisputable
evidance for something.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Richard
To which I replied:
Richard,
Thank you for your thoughtful dissection of Matrix Reloaded. Your willingness to wait four years to watch the movie or to write this e-mail and hold onto it for up to four years before sending it to us shows that you have the potential to really sit around doing nothing professionally one day. No hurry.
The answer to your question is that there were many things being reloaded, 1) the same effects from the original film were "reloaded", 2) the same theatre goers were "reloaded" into theaters to watch the movie, 3) many of the same actors were "reloaded" to make the whole reloading process that much more visceral, 3) the same story lines were also "reloaded" so that it was almost like the same movie was just reloaded into the can. Naturally, all of this reloading resulted in a certain negation akin to white noise and as such would be commonly characterized by a metaphorical "nothing" which is an appropriate topic for this forum.
As for your statement about nothing squared equalling nothing, I'm not quite sure where you are trying to take that. But no, that is not evidence for something (well, it could be evidence of math wasting everyones valuable time, but that can be proved in many other ways). But we also don't need any evidence for something besides its existence. Sometimes, even that seems excessive.
--Xymyl (KON)
Dear Sir,
I just watched the Matrix Reloaded, and it occured to me that it is nothing.
Nothing was said. Nothing occurred. Often characters (if there were
any) acted, and those actions changed nothing and meant nothing. For
Neo, who was nothing, nothing seemed to be able to stop him from his
relentless pursuit of nothing. It was great the way he saved Trinity
in the end so that together they could do nothing.
I really empathised with the characters. They seemed to feel nothing
and when I watched the film I felt nothing too.
My question is: what exactly was being 'reloaded' if the result was
nothing? If nothing squared equals nothing, that is indisputable
evidance for something.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Richard
To which I replied:
Richard,
Thank you for your thoughtful dissection of Matrix Reloaded. Your willingness to wait four years to watch the movie or to write this e-mail and hold onto it for up to four years before sending it to us shows that you have the potential to really sit around doing nothing professionally one day. No hurry.
The answer to your question is that there were many things being reloaded, 1) the same effects from the original film were "reloaded", 2) the same theatre goers were "reloaded" into theaters to watch the movie, 3) many of the same actors were "reloaded" to make the whole reloading process that much more visceral, 3) the same story lines were also "reloaded" so that it was almost like the same movie was just reloaded into the can. Naturally, all of this reloading resulted in a certain negation akin to white noise and as such would be commonly characterized by a metaphorical "nothing" which is an appropriate topic for this forum.
As for your statement about nothing squared equalling nothing, I'm not quite sure where you are trying to take that. But no, that is not evidence for something (well, it could be evidence of math wasting everyones valuable time, but that can be proved in many other ways). But we also don't need any evidence for something besides its existence. Sometimes, even that seems excessive.
--Xymyl (KON)
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Q&A Where's my shirt?
On May 9, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Steve H. wrote:
I mailed you a check for $20 for a black, size large, nothing T-shirt and I have not received it. I mailed the check in mid-April. Could you please let me know if you received the check and when i can expect to get my T-Shirt? Thanks
To which I replied:
Hi Steve,
We got your check and we will send out your shirt as promised. As our site says, 4 to 8 weeks to delivery.
We know that is a long time to wait for a shirt, but we have enjoyed spending the last few weeks hanging out with your check. That's right, we haven't even brought it to the bank yet, the extra time we take to cash your check or send your shirt is our way of saying thank you for your purchase.
Remember, we think nothing is more important than a satisfied customer, and we were doing nothing important at the time we got your check.
In all seriousness, we have been considering running our operation like a real business, actually making money, processing orders at greater speed, etc, we even put tee shirts up for sale on Amazon. Sure you pay a little more, but then we send your tee-shirt within two days. Perhaps one day we will just be another big corporation that wastes peoples time at random without caring. In many ways that would be very cool. But for now we are still just thinking about you and staring at your check. It is a very nice check with what appears to be a simple herringbone pattern, but on closer inspection you can see that the pattern isn't connected but then you start to think that the pattern... I'm sorry, I'm deliberately stalling for time.
We'll send that right out to you.... well, give us just a couple more days.
Xymyl (KON)
To which Steve responded:
Hey, thanks for nothing! Well, for the time being at least. I am encouraged by your thoughtful note however and will look forward to receiving nothing from you real soon. In the meantime you may continue to gaze longingly at the herringbone pattern on my check. However you will find it even more rewarding if you cash it. Of course that would constitute my giving you something in return for nothing. Aside from a good laugh and a T-shirt.
Best regards,
Steve H.
I mailed you a check for $20 for a black, size large, nothing T-shirt and I have not received it. I mailed the check in mid-April. Could you please let me know if you received the check and when i can expect to get my T-Shirt? Thanks
To which I replied:
Hi Steve,
We got your check and we will send out your shirt as promised. As our site says, 4 to 8 weeks to delivery.
We know that is a long time to wait for a shirt, but we have enjoyed spending the last few weeks hanging out with your check. That's right, we haven't even brought it to the bank yet, the extra time we take to cash your check or send your shirt is our way of saying thank you for your purchase.
Remember, we think nothing is more important than a satisfied customer, and we were doing nothing important at the time we got your check.
In all seriousness, we have been considering running our operation like a real business, actually making money, processing orders at greater speed, etc, we even put tee shirts up for sale on Amazon. Sure you pay a little more, but then we send your tee-shirt within two days. Perhaps one day we will just be another big corporation that wastes peoples time at random without caring. In many ways that would be very cool. But for now we are still just thinking about you and staring at your check. It is a very nice check with what appears to be a simple herringbone pattern, but on closer inspection you can see that the pattern isn't connected but then you start to think that the pattern... I'm sorry, I'm deliberately stalling for time.
We'll send that right out to you.... well, give us just a couple more days.
Xymyl (KON)
To which Steve responded:
Hey, thanks for nothing! Well, for the time being at least. I am encouraged by your thoughtful note however and will look forward to receiving nothing from you real soon. In the meantime you may continue to gaze longingly at the herringbone pattern on my check. However you will find it even more rewarding if you cash it. Of course that would constitute my giving you something in return for nothing. Aside from a good laugh and a T-shirt.
Best regards,
Steve H.
Fanmail: A warning...
On May 10, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Bane93@aol.com wrote:
www.something.com
it threatens your entire existence be careful
signed,
Noman
To which I replied:
Hi Noman,
Thanks for the heads up!
We aren't too worried though, as we have been barraged by anything and everything for all eternity. And as far as that goes, something doesn't necessarily threaten our existence as much as it threatens us WITH existence. We already know that we exist. We know that even we are something, some might even go so far as to say that to them we are everything. We remain extant in spite of something, anything and everything with a stated purpose. That purpose, of course, isn't.
Thank you for your outstanding efforts to protect nothing important from something insignificant!
--Xymyl (KON)
www.something.com
it threatens your entire existence be careful
signed,
Noman
To which I replied:
Hi Noman,
Thanks for the heads up!
We aren't too worried though, as we have been barraged by anything and everything for all eternity. And as far as that goes, something doesn't necessarily threaten our existence as much as it threatens us WITH existence. We already know that we exist. We know that even we are something, some might even go so far as to say that to them we are everything. We remain extant in spite of something, anything and everything with a stated purpose. That purpose, of course, isn't.
Thank you for your outstanding efforts to protect nothing important from something insignificant!
--Xymyl (KON)
Q&A Many questions about nothing
On May 4, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Sean Craft wrote a letter with many questions. These questions have been placed into this blog in an easy to read question and answer format. Enjoy:
X: Hello Sean, Thank you for your interest in nothing. We are always eager to help meager young minds to comprehend nothing. We have taken our time to pore over your questions and feel that we have adequately answered them. If you feel that we have not answered them in a satisfactory way then we suggest that you go do something with yourself.
SC: I'm just wondering, You wouldn't happen to have any empty spaces for nobodies, who normally would be doing nothing, but really need nothing else to do, would you?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Is nothing really nothing or could it be something more than nothing as some philosophers have thought?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Is it hard to package nothing?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Sorry for all the questions, but I really have nothing else to be doing at the moment.
X: Oh, that's alright. We love to talk about nothing. Answering your questions has really been a joy for me personally as it has brought back many memories of my childhood. Treasured moments from the past, which I will cherish forever, mostly dreams, but still great times. One in particular was when I was floating in a void of space, then slowly lowered down a dark brown mesh tube. All I could see were my hands reaching out in front of me feeling for anything, but nothing was there. The dream seemed to be on a perpetual loop. It started with an infinite memory of the dream repeating, as though the dream had always been happening to me even before my existence. Eventually the dream just ended, apparently before it had ever began.
SC: What are your beliefs on who it was or how nothing was created?
X: None.
SC: I can imagine that nothing could deter you from pursuing your studies of nothing, but if something could, deter you from nothing, what would that something be?
X: First of all, nothing couldn't even stop us from studying nothing. But if anything could, it would be teaching others about nothing.
SC: I trust you will divulge nothing of our conversations to noone else unless they have nothing to do with nothing.
X: If you mean that you hope I'll post this on the blog, yes, I will.
SC: Nothing is a hard topic to study is it not?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Once more, I'm sorry for being so inquisitive as to the value, study, and pursuit of nothing.
X: Once again I must remind you that we enjoy sharing our knowledge about nothing. Do not be ashamed of your interest in nothing, or for your need of assistance with nothing. Although the first three questions were very difficult to answer, I felt it was worth the extra effort to give you an in-depth generalization. That's why I didn't try very hard to answer them. On the other hand, those same questions were very simple and straightforward. Being that they were so easy to answer made me pause and really ruminate on them until I came up with the same exact answer I already had.
Thank you again.
--Xymyl (KON)
X: Hello Sean, Thank you for your interest in nothing. We are always eager to help meager young minds to comprehend nothing. We have taken our time to pore over your questions and feel that we have adequately answered them. If you feel that we have not answered them in a satisfactory way then we suggest that you go do something with yourself.
SC: I'm just wondering, You wouldn't happen to have any empty spaces for nobodies, who normally would be doing nothing, but really need nothing else to do, would you?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Is nothing really nothing or could it be something more than nothing as some philosophers have thought?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Is it hard to package nothing?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Sorry for all the questions, but I really have nothing else to be doing at the moment.
X: Oh, that's alright. We love to talk about nothing. Answering your questions has really been a joy for me personally as it has brought back many memories of my childhood. Treasured moments from the past, which I will cherish forever, mostly dreams, but still great times. One in particular was when I was floating in a void of space, then slowly lowered down a dark brown mesh tube. All I could see were my hands reaching out in front of me feeling for anything, but nothing was there. The dream seemed to be on a perpetual loop. It started with an infinite memory of the dream repeating, as though the dream had always been happening to me even before my existence. Eventually the dream just ended, apparently before it had ever began.
SC: What are your beliefs on who it was or how nothing was created?
X: None.
SC: I can imagine that nothing could deter you from pursuing your studies of nothing, but if something could, deter you from nothing, what would that something be?
X: First of all, nothing couldn't even stop us from studying nothing. But if anything could, it would be teaching others about nothing.
SC: I trust you will divulge nothing of our conversations to noone else unless they have nothing to do with nothing.
X: If you mean that you hope I'll post this on the blog, yes, I will.
SC: Nothing is a hard topic to study is it not?
X: Yes and no.
SC: Once more, I'm sorry for being so inquisitive as to the value, study, and pursuit of nothing.
X: Once again I must remind you that we enjoy sharing our knowledge about nothing. Do not be ashamed of your interest in nothing, or for your need of assistance with nothing. Although the first three questions were very difficult to answer, I felt it was worth the extra effort to give you an in-depth generalization. That's why I didn't try very hard to answer them. On the other hand, those same questions were very simple and straightforward. Being that they were so easy to answer made me pause and really ruminate on them until I came up with the same exact answer I already had.
Thank you again.
--Xymyl (KON)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)