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.