On October 28, 2011 Kristian Primeau wrote:
What a conundrum! Being observed by many as having done "...nothing, at all!", I have come to the conclusion that I have, in all actuality, accomplished alot...
Finally, a moment of epiphany... Nothing Is Something!
At last, hope and inspiration build...wait a minute...
I was tricked!
What can we say...
To which I replied:
Thanks for your musings on the 'state' of nothingness. It can be confusing to many because we are taught language so we can relate words and concepts to others. When it comes to nothing in general (the lack of something) it already starts to degrade. We quantify a lack with a simple measurement -a glass half-empty. Or we quantify a lack with an idea of what was (or should have been) there -if jane has three apples and john takes away two.
We are instructed from infancy in this simplistic addition & subtraction. Higher mathematics is not needed in the average person’s daily grind and thus falls into disuse as one progresses through real life. In my case, I had created my own style of math long before I learned to count (thus it was inherently non-numerical) so I was predisposed against the stale indoctrinations of the ignorant masses. I already had a system that worked, however, I was happy to incorporate this numerical math into my life because it was beneficial for communicating quantities of things.
This is how it worked when I was in school... you are shown a group of things and then you assign numbers to how many of them there are. If there are eight things in the picture you write an 8 on your worksheet. If there are four, you write 4. If there are forty billion things in the picture you use your advanced non-numerical math system that you made up all by yourself while you were still a baby and you translate your outcome to a recognizable numerical equivalent so you can share it with your teacher. Oh, that’s right, they wouldn’t bother with numbers too big to count or too small to count. Incidentally, those were the only things I was interested in.
You mention that others have noted you doing “...nothing at all!” and I would agree with you. Giving the impression of total non-essence is a great (some might say glorious) feat. But I want to make it very clear that while ‘giving an impression’ is something, nothing isn’t necessarily anything.
Obviously nothing CAN be and generally IS something. But that’s when used in that ever-present numerical sense -Jane has zero apples OR Jane has nothing. And that “nothing” is not the nothing of total lack of existence, for she still has her life. Like so many words (yes, the WORD nothing is also a thing) nothing has many meanings and uses.
So now we’ve transitioned back to words. Let us dispense with zero, because it never will be nothing in the fullest sense. Don’t get me wrong. I love ‘zero’. But it’s about as non-extant as ‘having nothing to do’. Zero is at best a placeholder and at worst it’s a lack (usually of apples or other fruit).
So lets get to the point of this diatribe, nothing.
The WORD nothing IS SOMETHING. In the vernacular it is used ad infinitum in this finite sense. To fully understand nothing, we need to see beyond the boring concept of an ever-expanding infinity (yawn). We need to see an infinity that never had to start because “it” either already never wasn’t OR wasn’t ever never.
Colloquially it would be appropriate to speak of ‘the big nothing’ as never having existed. And we have no problem with this elementary phrasing. In fact our ever-unchanging web site uses many such literary tricks to get people started thinking about nothing.
Every-so-often we like to break out the ultimate truth about nothing and let people in on what exactly ‘the big nothing’ isn’t even not.
We have always held that nothing (the big nothing, real nothing) has no state, but is not lacking a state. A lack would make nothing something. Nothing is better than that, so we explain further. Nothing is so non-extant but so non-lacking that ‘it’ can’t EVEN not exist. Nothing has no capacity, nothing has no lack, nothing has no ability to have or not have anything. Yet, we have nothing and we are so proud of ‘it’ that we want to share nothing with everyone (for $5).
So now I hope you see clearly that when you were tricked by nothing, you were tricked into enlightenment... or whatever.
Xymyl (KON)
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Nothing A Noyhing
On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:19 AM, david evans wrote:
If you get nothing isn’t that really something or is the something really noyhing?
To which I responded:
If you purchase nothing from us you'll get a manual with "it". So you get nothing AND something. The one thing and the non-thing are not interchangeable, nor does one cancel out the "other". The thing you get is instructions and nothing is self explanatory.
I appreciate how you wrote the word "noyhing" which reminded me of the word annoying, which made me think about how difficult it might be for some to confront the issues presented by us (purveyors of nothing). Especially since we have nothing on which to base our standards for debate. But, people don't generally come to us looking for a debate. I guess what I'm saying is that they come for nothing and they stay for no apparent reason. So I suppose if one doesn't know why they come to us for answers about nothing, then they stick around just to see if we'll say the same jokes about nothing serious, and they feel compelled by inertia (not the inertia of momentum but the inertia of stasis) to just continue to stick around - getting all worked up over nothing - then even to us that might seem a noyhing.
Did you like how I milked that? Didja? It was difficult because you gave me almost nothing to work with.
Xymyl (KON)
If you get nothing isn’t that really something or is the something really noyhing?
To which I responded:
If you purchase nothing from us you'll get a manual with "it". So you get nothing AND something. The one thing and the non-thing are not interchangeable, nor does one cancel out the "other". The thing you get is instructions and nothing is self explanatory.
I appreciate how you wrote the word "noyhing" which reminded me of the word annoying, which made me think about how difficult it might be for some to confront the issues presented by us (purveyors of nothing). Especially since we have nothing on which to base our standards for debate. But, people don't generally come to us looking for a debate. I guess what I'm saying is that they come for nothing and they stay for no apparent reason. So I suppose if one doesn't know why they come to us for answers about nothing, then they stick around just to see if we'll say the same jokes about nothing serious, and they feel compelled by inertia (not the inertia of momentum but the inertia of stasis) to just continue to stick around - getting all worked up over nothing - then even to us that might seem a noyhing.
Did you like how I milked that? Didja? It was difficult because you gave me almost nothing to work with.
Xymyl (KON)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Conversation: When is a noun not a noun?
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Staticboy44 wrote:
When we speak about nothing we speak about something because nothing is the idea of something. Otherwise, 'nothing' wouldn't be a noun. And if nothing 'is' and noun and can 'be' a noun, then nothing is a 'something'.
To which I replied:
Staticboy,
I agree that an Idea is something, however, it's not quantifiable unless expressed. Even if expressed, an idea generally isn't much. However, that doesn't mean that having an idea or thought about anything that exists or doesn't yet exist makes that thing (real or imagined) any more than what it already was. For example, the idea "rent check" is great, the landlord loves that idea. But the idea is essentially nothing without its extant counterpart. Are you getting this? Things with no force have no ability to bring other things into being, so having an idea about something isn't that same as creating that thing, nor does it mean that the thing that doesn't yet exist always existed. In fact, that idea probably doesn't mean anything.
As for your next statement, I can start out by agreeing that the WORD nothing is usually a noun, and there are many contexts in which the word nothing is properly used to signify a state of being, most of these cases are when nothing is used as a numerical equivalent. Examples would be, "there's nothing left!" or "I will harm nothing among your prize winning otter-skin hat collection". Again, those statements are both numerical so they do not refer to "pure nothing". However when used to refer to "pure nothing" the word nothing can be used as an identifier, but not properly as a noun.
Thanks for your linear and overly simplistic comments regarding nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
When we speak about nothing we speak about something because nothing is the idea of something. Otherwise, 'nothing' wouldn't be a noun. And if nothing 'is' and noun and can 'be' a noun, then nothing is a 'something'.
To which I replied:
Staticboy,
I agree that an Idea is something, however, it's not quantifiable unless expressed. Even if expressed, an idea generally isn't much. However, that doesn't mean that having an idea or thought about anything that exists or doesn't yet exist makes that thing (real or imagined) any more than what it already was. For example, the idea "rent check" is great, the landlord loves that idea. But the idea is essentially nothing without its extant counterpart. Are you getting this? Things with no force have no ability to bring other things into being, so having an idea about something isn't that same as creating that thing, nor does it mean that the thing that doesn't yet exist always existed. In fact, that idea probably doesn't mean anything.
As for your next statement, I can start out by agreeing that the WORD nothing is usually a noun, and there are many contexts in which the word nothing is properly used to signify a state of being, most of these cases are when nothing is used as a numerical equivalent. Examples would be, "there's nothing left!" or "I will harm nothing among your prize winning otter-skin hat collection". Again, those statements are both numerical so they do not refer to "pure nothing". However when used to refer to "pure nothing" the word nothing can be used as an identifier, but not properly as a noun.
Thanks for your linear and overly simplistic comments regarding nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
Top level communication: Nothing is STILL never what you think or even dream "it" "is". Part II
On Jun 2, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Cameron Burns wrote:
I am curious, do you make your living with www.nothing.net? I am not saying it is a bad investment, I am just wondering as to why someone with as a good perspective on philosophical Ideas as you have would go about discussing paradox's of nothing on a website. I simply posted multiple posts to get your attention. I did not do in an egoist sort of way, and do not care what kind of negative response i may have. I find your opinions interesting as with your somewhat comic representations of the uses and contradictions in certain phrasing of the word. When I said, "Only in a dream can Nothing be experienced along with anything. As Bue-Bye said: "Ain't no place that there never was."" You're right that I could have just said nothing, but my meaning in saying that is that you cannot experience absence of perception along with Perception in the same "reality" unless you are dreaming. Some would say that that is the goal of meditation, yet all the while meditation leads to an "enlightened" state of mind, and if you have an "enlightened" state of mind then surely you have not rid your mind of all perception. When you are dreaming you are both there, yet you are also completely non present when it comes to your state of mind in a sense that you cannot logically determine what you are doing; Unless You are conscious of the fact you are dreaming, or rather "lucid dreaming". Everything IS meaningless without a revelation of that something. That is why I speak of dreams so much. Dreams are the essence of action through non-action. Dreams unlock the minds ability to express unconditionally. When I said, "Perception is reality and without there is a dream." I meant that without reality there is a dream, and by that I mean a literal dream like while you are asleep, in the accord that reality is waking life and without there is a dream. But that sentence right there is a paradox. If perception is reality then a dream can be just as much of a reality if you are perceiving it, for example, in a lucid dream. I am not obsessed with dreams as you may suggest in your e-mail, but I do want to ask you one thing. Have you ever had a dream, where you realized it was a dream, and then you tried to figure out where you are by doing things you would normally do in your waking life? That quote I wrote at the end of my last E-mail, I saw in a dream where I did just that. I found the sun, and tried to follow it, only it did not look like the sun and I could look at it directly. It led me to a large pyramid with water flowing off the sides. I even drank the water and it tasted just as real as water when you're awake. I climbed to the top and at the top was a gravestone of sort that read, "Bue-Bye: "Ain't no place that there never was."" After reading that I got kind of surprised and woke up suddenly. The next day I went to class and my history professor gave me a very old book of poems after I randomly told him about the dream. In the book he pointed out the same quote by an ancient Chinese man, that my professor had seen previously and remembered because of the curiousness of the saying. By telling you this I am merely suggesting that when we dream, If we take control of our dreams, It is quite possible that one can experience different perceptions of reality. I do not presume to understand it well at all.
To which I responded:
Share and share alike. I'll answer this letter from the bottom up and in a (hopefully) far less verbose manner than my previous response.
You asked, "Have you ever had a dream, where you realized it was a dream..." Yes, all the time...
When I was younger the natural state of my dreams was lucid and the default nature of my waking hours was as if in a dream (or at least accompanied by dreams). Being a chronic insomniac all of my life I learned at a very young age that one MUST dream. If you never sleep, you will still dream, it just happens while you're awake. Learning to cope with real-life situations - active daily life - interacting with my own dreams was a useful skill once I actually did get some sleep. I would trick out my sleepy-time dreams with colors that can't possibly exist in reality and layers of abstraction that are impossible to express with any form of communication. I would rarely change what I personally did in my dreams but I was really a god of my own universe so I would change the world around me, of course I'm not too uppity to admit that I would tend to fly, float, hover and drift a lot in these dreams, and I was almost always omniscient. I know, flying is what all the lucid dream geeks do. Sorry if I've shattered my public image through that statement.
But enough about me and my silly dreams. Let's get back to nothing important...
As for meditation, many believe (as you have mentioned) that unburdening and freeing the mind of all thoughts will bring one to a higher level of consciousness. I believe the enlightenment that is achieved through such a practice is a sort of dumbing down, more of a "lightening" of the mind rather than a "shedding of light" onto or into the mind. If you look at my blog posting from Tuesday May 29th 2007 "Q&A Your first "encounter" with nothing?", you'll see a brief account of the most such an experience can accomplish. ( http://xymyl.blogspot.com/2007/05/q-your-first-encounter-with-nothing.html )
Now that you've explained more of the background behind the story I appreciate your method of interjecting an obscure reference as though it should be common knowledge. I was already thinking, "this reference sounds like a family bedtime story, am I expected to know this?" - but I never suspected that you would be making a direct reference to one of your dreams as one might choose a phrase from a movie (as I overheard a group of young ladies in the 90's doing - "I know of this great blowfish place") as a pseudo inside joke or bonding crutch. I'm fairly certain you didn't expect me to get it, or did you? Was I supposed to say, "Oh yeah, that's a reference to that dream you had!" or write back a cryptic message that only you and I would understand to let you know that I was on your page?
By way of response to your wonderment at my choice of philosophical endeavors, I can only say that nothing means more to me than spending my time on making money or changing the world or just about anything. As for the value of my investment, I think I've done very well. With a non-stop stream - and often overwhelming floods - of traffic to nothing.net I could have sold advertising, made the tee-shirts more prominent, made nothing into more of a gimmick so people could understand "it" as it, and many other things. Yet, I've stuck to my original plan. Nothing, pure and simple (with jokes). And I'm proud to say that after 12 years and millions upon millions of visitors I have been able to consistently lose money on this educational project. Everyone involved with nothing appreciates and strives for that type of success.
And to answer your question, no. Part of the fun about nothing.net is that there is no reason for it to exist yet it does exist and primarily for the purpose of promoting a deeper understanding of what doesn't exist (and yet has a somewhat misleading name). The secondary function of the site is to combine the inherent flaws in (english) language with the natural inclination of the masses to attempt to see beyond the obvious - without establishing logical parameters from which to judge - to make the same joke over and over and over again.
I hope this information helps you understand why nothing is close to my heart.
--Xymyl (KON)
I am curious, do you make your living with www.nothing.net? I am not saying it is a bad investment, I am just wondering as to why someone with as a good perspective on philosophical Ideas as you have would go about discussing paradox's of nothing on a website. I simply posted multiple posts to get your attention. I did not do in an egoist sort of way, and do not care what kind of negative response i may have. I find your opinions interesting as with your somewhat comic representations of the uses and contradictions in certain phrasing of the word. When I said, "Only in a dream can Nothing be experienced along with anything. As Bue-Bye said: "Ain't no place that there never was."" You're right that I could have just said nothing, but my meaning in saying that is that you cannot experience absence of perception along with Perception in the same "reality" unless you are dreaming. Some would say that that is the goal of meditation, yet all the while meditation leads to an "enlightened" state of mind, and if you have an "enlightened" state of mind then surely you have not rid your mind of all perception. When you are dreaming you are both there, yet you are also completely non present when it comes to your state of mind in a sense that you cannot logically determine what you are doing; Unless You are conscious of the fact you are dreaming, or rather "lucid dreaming". Everything IS meaningless without a revelation of that something. That is why I speak of dreams so much. Dreams are the essence of action through non-action. Dreams unlock the minds ability to express unconditionally. When I said, "Perception is reality and without there is a dream." I meant that without reality there is a dream, and by that I mean a literal dream like while you are asleep, in the accord that reality is waking life and without there is a dream. But that sentence right there is a paradox. If perception is reality then a dream can be just as much of a reality if you are perceiving it, for example, in a lucid dream. I am not obsessed with dreams as you may suggest in your e-mail, but I do want to ask you one thing. Have you ever had a dream, where you realized it was a dream, and then you tried to figure out where you are by doing things you would normally do in your waking life? That quote I wrote at the end of my last E-mail, I saw in a dream where I did just that. I found the sun, and tried to follow it, only it did not look like the sun and I could look at it directly. It led me to a large pyramid with water flowing off the sides. I even drank the water and it tasted just as real as water when you're awake. I climbed to the top and at the top was a gravestone of sort that read, "Bue-Bye: "Ain't no place that there never was."" After reading that I got kind of surprised and woke up suddenly. The next day I went to class and my history professor gave me a very old book of poems after I randomly told him about the dream. In the book he pointed out the same quote by an ancient Chinese man, that my professor had seen previously and remembered because of the curiousness of the saying. By telling you this I am merely suggesting that when we dream, If we take control of our dreams, It is quite possible that one can experience different perceptions of reality. I do not presume to understand it well at all.
To which I responded:
Share and share alike. I'll answer this letter from the bottom up and in a (hopefully) far less verbose manner than my previous response.
You asked, "Have you ever had a dream, where you realized it was a dream..." Yes, all the time...
When I was younger the natural state of my dreams was lucid and the default nature of my waking hours was as if in a dream (or at least accompanied by dreams). Being a chronic insomniac all of my life I learned at a very young age that one MUST dream. If you never sleep, you will still dream, it just happens while you're awake. Learning to cope with real-life situations - active daily life - interacting with my own dreams was a useful skill once I actually did get some sleep. I would trick out my sleepy-time dreams with colors that can't possibly exist in reality and layers of abstraction that are impossible to express with any form of communication. I would rarely change what I personally did in my dreams but I was really a god of my own universe so I would change the world around me, of course I'm not too uppity to admit that I would tend to fly, float, hover and drift a lot in these dreams, and I was almost always omniscient. I know, flying is what all the lucid dream geeks do. Sorry if I've shattered my public image through that statement.
But enough about me and my silly dreams. Let's get back to nothing important...
As for meditation, many believe (as you have mentioned) that unburdening and freeing the mind of all thoughts will bring one to a higher level of consciousness. I believe the enlightenment that is achieved through such a practice is a sort of dumbing down, more of a "lightening" of the mind rather than a "shedding of light" onto or into the mind. If you look at my blog posting from Tuesday May 29th 2007 "Q&A Your first "encounter" with nothing?", you'll see a brief account of the most such an experience can accomplish. ( http://xymyl.blogspot.com/2007/05/q-your-first-encounter-with-nothing.html )
Now that you've explained more of the background behind the story I appreciate your method of interjecting an obscure reference as though it should be common knowledge. I was already thinking, "this reference sounds like a family bedtime story, am I expected to know this?" - but I never suspected that you would be making a direct reference to one of your dreams as one might choose a phrase from a movie (as I overheard a group of young ladies in the 90's doing - "I know of this great blowfish place") as a pseudo inside joke or bonding crutch. I'm fairly certain you didn't expect me to get it, or did you? Was I supposed to say, "Oh yeah, that's a reference to that dream you had!" or write back a cryptic message that only you and I would understand to let you know that I was on your page?
By way of response to your wonderment at my choice of philosophical endeavors, I can only say that nothing means more to me than spending my time on making money or changing the world or just about anything. As for the value of my investment, I think I've done very well. With a non-stop stream - and often overwhelming floods - of traffic to nothing.net I could have sold advertising, made the tee-shirts more prominent, made nothing into more of a gimmick so people could understand "it" as it, and many other things. Yet, I've stuck to my original plan. Nothing, pure and simple (with jokes). And I'm proud to say that after 12 years and millions upon millions of visitors I have been able to consistently lose money on this educational project. Everyone involved with nothing appreciates and strives for that type of success.
And to answer your question, no. Part of the fun about nothing.net is that there is no reason for it to exist yet it does exist and primarily for the purpose of promoting a deeper understanding of what doesn't exist (and yet has a somewhat misleading name). The secondary function of the site is to combine the inherent flaws in (english) language with the natural inclination of the masses to attempt to see beyond the obvious - without establishing logical parameters from which to judge - to make the same joke over and over and over again.
I hope this information helps you understand why nothing is close to my heart.
--Xymyl (KON)
Monday, June 2, 2008
Top level communication: Nothing is never what you think or even dream "it" "is".
On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Cameron Burns wrote:
Perception of the understanding of something determines IT is something. Perception is reality and without there is a dream. For if you're not perceiving anything, then surely you understand it already. It is impossible to perceive nothing to the affect that Nothing is nothing. If you claim to understand nothing then you are mistaken. Nothing can be used to understand nothing. Only in a dream can Nothing be experienced along with anything. As Bue-Bye said: "Ain't no place that there never was."
To which I replied:
Certainly I would have to generally agree with your first statement, when one understands something or knows something about something that something is almost assuredly something. Understanding nothing would have to be different though wouldn't it? You know, since nothing isn't something. I appreciate how you don't seem to allow understanding to carry any weight on its own, as though perception of the understanding is everything and the understanding is meaningless without a further revelation.
Personally, I don't see perception (or even perception that adds value to neutral understanding) as molding realities. I believe the realities of loss, lack, negation and substance or even abundance will remain inert or constant with the only variations in their states being prompted by the forces that act upon (or interact with) them. It is technically not possible to interact with a true vacuum. As soon as an entity, force or object is introduced into the void it becomes active (or at least populated) to that degree. Of course a forceless void which is impregnated by objects with force from beyond that point will seem to be interacting - sucking the outside world in - however, our theoretical vacuum was really nothing, and all that suckage was really just natures way of balancing everything out.
Your next sentence does not contain enough qualifiers to determine what you're trying to say. If you mean "without perception there is a dream" I'm not sure where you're going with this. If you mean "without reality there is a dream", then I would have to counter that, thoughts, hopes and even dreams exist. This is perceived by the dreamer himself and often conveyed to others as well through conversation when the dream was exceptional or just to fill awkward moments during socialization, dooming those relationships to a slow slide into oblivion. If you meant "without a unified perception/reality fusion there is a dream" I would have to say that this perception/reality to which you refer sounds very much like a dream, where the subconscious mind interacts with all of the data stored during waking hours, allowing us to make connections that would be highly unlikely if we allowed insecurities, prejudices and fears to influence our responses to stimuli as we may be more inclined to while awake.
Your third sentence negates itself. Enough said.
Your fourth sentence is just plain strange, plus, I've covered anything that could possibly be gleaned from it as having value in my previous statements. We're really cruising now!
Your next point is that I am mistaken if I claim to understand nothing. Are you claiming that I have more understanding than I can possibly comprehend? And are you then possibly claiming that I know everything? Because if I don't know everything I must at least know nothing in the general sense of knowing nothing about certain subjects. If you claim that I know everything, then by YOUR definition of nothing I must also know nothing. So which is it? I'm right and you're wrong or you're wrong and I'm right? Don't answer that question, I'll just guess quietly.
You immediately follow that cryptic blurb with a general truism. Nothing can be used to understand nothing, and I would have to agree with you, nothing is certainly not anything that can be used to comprehend nothing and I mean that in both the way you said it and the way I did, but I don't believe I mean what you said in the way you meant it.
And then you lost me at the end, I don't know what your obsession with dreams is all about. As the song "Row Your Boat" says, "life is but a dream" it also says we should row our boats. It says that a lot! People who are obsessed with dreams seem to repeat themselves a lot, when they could have just said nothing.
Thank you for your comments, and where we don't see things eye to eye it is refreshing to know that we still see nothing differently. You in the sense that you think you see it so you don't, me in the sense that I don't see "it" so I do.
--Xymyl (KON)
Perception of the understanding of something determines IT is something. Perception is reality and without there is a dream. For if you're not perceiving anything, then surely you understand it already. It is impossible to perceive nothing to the affect that Nothing is nothing. If you claim to understand nothing then you are mistaken. Nothing can be used to understand nothing. Only in a dream can Nothing be experienced along with anything. As Bue-Bye said: "Ain't no place that there never was."
To which I replied:
Certainly I would have to generally agree with your first statement, when one understands something or knows something about something that something is almost assuredly something. Understanding nothing would have to be different though wouldn't it? You know, since nothing isn't something. I appreciate how you don't seem to allow understanding to carry any weight on its own, as though perception of the understanding is everything and the understanding is meaningless without a further revelation.
Personally, I don't see perception (or even perception that adds value to neutral understanding) as molding realities. I believe the realities of loss, lack, negation and substance or even abundance will remain inert or constant with the only variations in their states being prompted by the forces that act upon (or interact with) them. It is technically not possible to interact with a true vacuum. As soon as an entity, force or object is introduced into the void it becomes active (or at least populated) to that degree. Of course a forceless void which is impregnated by objects with force from beyond that point will seem to be interacting - sucking the outside world in - however, our theoretical vacuum was really nothing, and all that suckage was really just natures way of balancing everything out.
Your next sentence does not contain enough qualifiers to determine what you're trying to say. If you mean "without perception there is a dream" I'm not sure where you're going with this. If you mean "without reality there is a dream", then I would have to counter that, thoughts, hopes and even dreams exist. This is perceived by the dreamer himself and often conveyed to others as well through conversation when the dream was exceptional or just to fill awkward moments during socialization, dooming those relationships to a slow slide into oblivion. If you meant "without a unified perception/reality fusion there is a dream" I would have to say that this perception/reality to which you refer sounds very much like a dream, where the subconscious mind interacts with all of the data stored during waking hours, allowing us to make connections that would be highly unlikely if we allowed insecurities, prejudices and fears to influence our responses to stimuli as we may be more inclined to while awake.
Your third sentence negates itself. Enough said.
Your fourth sentence is just plain strange, plus, I've covered anything that could possibly be gleaned from it as having value in my previous statements. We're really cruising now!
Your next point is that I am mistaken if I claim to understand nothing. Are you claiming that I have more understanding than I can possibly comprehend? And are you then possibly claiming that I know everything? Because if I don't know everything I must at least know nothing in the general sense of knowing nothing about certain subjects. If you claim that I know everything, then by YOUR definition of nothing I must also know nothing. So which is it? I'm right and you're wrong or you're wrong and I'm right? Don't answer that question, I'll just guess quietly.
You immediately follow that cryptic blurb with a general truism. Nothing can be used to understand nothing, and I would have to agree with you, nothing is certainly not anything that can be used to comprehend nothing and I mean that in both the way you said it and the way I did, but I don't believe I mean what you said in the way you meant it.
And then you lost me at the end, I don't know what your obsession with dreams is all about. As the song "Row Your Boat" says, "life is but a dream" it also says we should row our boats. It says that a lot! People who are obsessed with dreams seem to repeat themselves a lot, when they could have just said nothing.
Thank you for your comments, and where we don't see things eye to eye it is refreshing to know that we still see nothing differently. You in the sense that you think you see it so you don't, me in the sense that I don't see "it" so I do.
--Xymyl (KON)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Top level communication: Nothing from nothing gets eggroll
On May 22, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Ron wrote what he referred to as his testimonial:
Nothing from nothing gets...... Nothing!
:Ron
To which I replied:
Hi Ron,
After months of not answering anyone, I have come out of nowhere (right now) to reply to this message. I don't have much to say so I'm writing this filler on the front end to build up to what I am about to say. I hope you are still reading this and not just jumping down to the clearly separated portion of this note that contains all of the substance, because that would be cheating and I hate anything more than a cheater, but cheaters are still pretty high on that list of things. That last sentence was difficult for me because I should have written something to the effect of, "I hate nothing worse than a cheater" but I knew you would be showing this around the office and laughing at me while you told everyone, "the king of nothing hates his own kingdom!" You and I would both know full well that you were simply grasping at anything you could find to protect your ever-precious ego, so I used the other sentence that makes less sense and takes more time, but not - I repeat, NOT - the the other sentence that was mentioned only to show that I had perspective, depth & powers of forethought... Oh, looks like my stall-o-meter says I can write the actual response now. You didn't already look did you? As you rightly guessed, I could go on and on...
I'll start again. Ron, that seems a bit long for a testimonial. Are you sure it isn't a manifesto?
Nothing from nothing gets...... Nothing!
:Ron
To which I replied:
Hi Ron,
After months of not answering anyone, I have come out of nowhere (right now) to reply to this message. I don't have much to say so I'm writing this filler on the front end to build up to what I am about to say. I hope you are still reading this and not just jumping down to the clearly separated portion of this note that contains all of the substance, because that would be cheating and I hate anything more than a cheater, but cheaters are still pretty high on that list of things. That last sentence was difficult for me because I should have written something to the effect of, "I hate nothing worse than a cheater" but I knew you would be showing this around the office and laughing at me while you told everyone, "the king of nothing hates his own kingdom!" You and I would both know full well that you were simply grasping at anything you could find to protect your ever-precious ego, so I used the other sentence that makes less sense and takes more time, but not - I repeat, NOT - the the other sentence that was mentioned only to show that I had perspective, depth & powers of forethought... Oh, looks like my stall-o-meter says I can write the actual response now. You didn't already look did you? As you rightly guessed, I could go on and on...
I'll start again. Ron, that seems a bit long for a testimonial. Are you sure it isn't a manifesto?
Friday, January 4, 2008
Hatemail: I can't get nothing I want!
On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Derek Finch wrote:
I am genuinely and deeply dissapointed. I was on the web looking for nothing and came across your site and as such I feel this as an intrusion on my right to find nothing if that is what I am searching for. You claim to offer nothing but in fact such a claim is by definition a contradiction. When I search for nothing I expect a blank page with no links, no text, not even any color. Your site, on the other hand, is offensively full of content. I am so upset I have decided not to order anyting from you. If you are unable to deliver I will refer your organisation to the BBB and hope they sue you for every last noncents you have.
DF
To which I responded:
Derek,
I appreciate the disappointment you suffered when you found something about nothing when you were searching for nothing. May I ask though, would you have continued your search forever if you hadn't found this site? Or indeed, would you have stopped searching once you didn't find the nothing.net web site?
I submit that you were looking to start a big fuss over nothing so you thought anyone claiming to offer nothing would be an easy target. I must admit you have quite a pair of "huevos del ganso" to pick a fight with the leading authorities on nothing.
Since you started off trying to find nothing, perhaps you are simply trying to finish what you started. Ideally this would end in nothing. Am I on the right track here? If so, that means that you win if you lose this argument. However, if I let you win you'll lose.
Either of these options is a losing proposition for me, because win or lose you win and lose. Ideally, I would accomplish nothing, yet at the same time I would need to prevent you from accomplishing nothing, not because I wouldn't love for you to have nothing, but because you want me to not give you anything retroactively and it's not polite to try to make people travel through time just to make less things happen to you than would have happened if you weren't out looking for something regarding nothing to cause trouble about. Plus, it's impossible, which makes it all the more rude and disrespectful.
Although my following statements could appear to make me the winner (and thus the loser) of this argument, I must take this tack for a moment. You say that when looking for nothing, "I expect a blank page", yet a blank page is something. My point here is that you really were looking for something, you simply wanted that something to APPEAR to be nothing. Seeing that you browsed the site, you must have realized that no matter how content rich it may appear, we are all about nothing.
Knowing that you knew that you were not serious about anything you wrote in your letter, means that both of us were fully aware that there was no point to your initial letter or this lengthy reply. This means you must have written your letter with full knowledge that I would not reply, thus you felt that you had accomplished nothing by your e-mail complaint. Since I chose to respond, your e-mail did not actually accomplish its intended purpose which was nothing. Yet, my letter (being a totally unnecessary response about nothing) remains totally pointless. This means that while I have accomplished nothing, you haven't.
All that being summed up, the paradox is broken, I win. But in a way don't we all?
--Xymyl (KON)
I am genuinely and deeply dissapointed. I was on the web looking for nothing and came across your site and as such I feel this as an intrusion on my right to find nothing if that is what I am searching for. You claim to offer nothing but in fact such a claim is by definition a contradiction. When I search for nothing I expect a blank page with no links, no text, not even any color. Your site, on the other hand, is offensively full of content. I am so upset I have decided not to order anyting from you. If you are unable to deliver I will refer your organisation to the BBB and hope they sue you for every last noncents you have.
DF
To which I responded:
Derek,
I appreciate the disappointment you suffered when you found something about nothing when you were searching for nothing. May I ask though, would you have continued your search forever if you hadn't found this site? Or indeed, would you have stopped searching once you didn't find the nothing.net web site?
I submit that you were looking to start a big fuss over nothing so you thought anyone claiming to offer nothing would be an easy target. I must admit you have quite a pair of "huevos del ganso" to pick a fight with the leading authorities on nothing.
Since you started off trying to find nothing, perhaps you are simply trying to finish what you started. Ideally this would end in nothing. Am I on the right track here? If so, that means that you win if you lose this argument. However, if I let you win you'll lose.
Either of these options is a losing proposition for me, because win or lose you win and lose. Ideally, I would accomplish nothing, yet at the same time I would need to prevent you from accomplishing nothing, not because I wouldn't love for you to have nothing, but because you want me to not give you anything retroactively and it's not polite to try to make people travel through time just to make less things happen to you than would have happened if you weren't out looking for something regarding nothing to cause trouble about. Plus, it's impossible, which makes it all the more rude and disrespectful.
Although my following statements could appear to make me the winner (and thus the loser) of this argument, I must take this tack for a moment. You say that when looking for nothing, "I expect a blank page", yet a blank page is something. My point here is that you really were looking for something, you simply wanted that something to APPEAR to be nothing. Seeing that you browsed the site, you must have realized that no matter how content rich it may appear, we are all about nothing.
Knowing that you knew that you were not serious about anything you wrote in your letter, means that both of us were fully aware that there was no point to your initial letter or this lengthy reply. This means you must have written your letter with full knowledge that I would not reply, thus you felt that you had accomplished nothing by your e-mail complaint. Since I chose to respond, your e-mail did not actually accomplish its intended purpose which was nothing. Yet, my letter (being a totally unnecessary response about nothing) remains totally pointless. This means that while I have accomplished nothing, you haven't.
All that being summed up, the paradox is broken, I win. But in a way don't we all?
--Xymyl (KON)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Top level communication: No Contest!!
Well, it's that time of year again (for the first time) the time when we pretend that we've always had a nothing essay competition. Wasn't it great last year when it was a tie between all of earth's inhabitants? Or wasn't it even better the year before when everyone thought we were joking and didn't bother to do anything? This year promises to be no better as we expect a very poor turnout. But wouldn't be great if... some number just shy of everyone got involved?
Here are the rules for this years competition:
Write an essay 500 words or less explaining why you ____ nothing.
Blank entries will be accepted, but keep in mind that there will be several blank entries and you will need to find a way to make your blank entry stand out beyond all others. If your blank entry bears a striking resemblance to all others you will receive 1st place. Remember to tell us that your entry is for the essay contest. Also remember to provide your name and address so that we can send you the prize you probably won't get.
All duplicates or ties will receive 1st place.
Awards:
1st place: All first place winners will receive nothing.
2nd place: The second place winner will receive the nothing users manual, except in the case of a tie in which case all second place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
3rd place: The third place winner will get a tee shirt that says nothing on it, except in the case of a tie in which all third place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
Last place: The last place winner will receive all the prizes left unclaimed by the previous winners except in the rare case that there are no ties which would mean that last place gets nothing at all.
Here are the rules for this years competition:
Write an essay 500 words or less explaining why you ____ nothing.
Blank entries will be accepted, but keep in mind that there will be several blank entries and you will need to find a way to make your blank entry stand out beyond all others. If your blank entry bears a striking resemblance to all others you will receive 1st place. Remember to tell us that your entry is for the essay contest. Also remember to provide your name and address so that we can send you the prize you probably won't get.
All duplicates or ties will receive 1st place.
Awards:
1st place: All first place winners will receive nothing.
2nd place: The second place winner will receive the nothing users manual, except in the case of a tie in which case all second place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
3rd place: The third place winner will get a tee shirt that says nothing on it, except in the case of a tie in which all third place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
Last place: The last place winner will receive all the prizes left unclaimed by the previous winners except in the rare case that there are no ties which would mean that last place gets nothing at all.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Q&A: How many is a shirt?
On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Josh wrote:
the website makes this a bit unclear, if i pay 20$ for a shirt, do i got 1 of my choice color, or 2, one in each color?
-josh
To which I replied:
Josh,
Thank you for your interest in nothing and tee shirts that promote nothing. When we created this site over 12 years ago, our intention was to make everything clear so that you could see through it to nothing. Now that someone was finally confused about something on our site, we can see that we have failed. If only we could have made nothing clear in the first place so that you would know you had gone too far when you saw anything. But as they say, hindsight is good for nothing. I can understand why you may have been confused about how many shirts you get and what colors they are because we are so focused on nothing that often the details are treated as unimportant. Although we don't apologize for this, we are sorry that we made it clear where you could get answers. Can we meet you halfway on this one and make everything semi-opaque?
The answer to your exciting question is: You get a single shirt in your choice of color (black with black lettering or white with white lettering).
If you have further questions, may I suggest that you ask yourself the question first. If you agree that the question legitimately deserves to be recognized and addressed in this forum, then by all means send it to us. If you think it is silly to ask yourself questions or you find the question to be unintelligible, please do not send it to us.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is our standard screening process, and without meaningless rules, obeying meaningless rules would be meaningless. And don't try and tell me it is already meaningless, ask yourself if it's meaningless, and don't answer yourself with another question, follow the rules.
Xymyl (KON)
the website makes this a bit unclear, if i pay 20$ for a shirt, do i got 1 of my choice color, or 2, one in each color?
-josh
To which I replied:
Josh,
Thank you for your interest in nothing and tee shirts that promote nothing. When we created this site over 12 years ago, our intention was to make everything clear so that you could see through it to nothing. Now that someone was finally confused about something on our site, we can see that we have failed. If only we could have made nothing clear in the first place so that you would know you had gone too far when you saw anything. But as they say, hindsight is good for nothing. I can understand why you may have been confused about how many shirts you get and what colors they are because we are so focused on nothing that often the details are treated as unimportant. Although we don't apologize for this, we are sorry that we made it clear where you could get answers. Can we meet you halfway on this one and make everything semi-opaque?
The answer to your exciting question is: You get a single shirt in your choice of color (black with black lettering or white with white lettering).
If you have further questions, may I suggest that you ask yourself the question first. If you agree that the question legitimately deserves to be recognized and addressed in this forum, then by all means send it to us. If you think it is silly to ask yourself questions or you find the question to be unintelligible, please do not send it to us.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is our standard screening process, and without meaningless rules, obeying meaningless rules would be meaningless. And don't try and tell me it is already meaningless, ask yourself if it's meaningless, and don't answer yourself with another question, follow the rules.
Xymyl (KON)
Monday, December 31, 2007
Top level communication: Nothing Creative
On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:26 AM, BASHA ONE wrote:
I was forwarded your site from a person who bought one of my NOTHING graffiti art canvases. I like your site and I am especially glad to see nothing. I love nothing and have been painting nothing for a while now. Check me at ebay under "BASHA ART"
Thanks,
BASHA>>>>>>>>
To which I replied:
BASHA,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding nothing interesting. I must mirror your sentiments about nothing and add that I enjoy nothing more than you do. I know this may come as a shock to someone who has painted nothing for so many years, but I have literally only made 3 paintings in the last 8 years. Absolutely all of the remaining time was dedicated to painting nothing. Once you develop that type of will power and strength of vision, you too will understand what it is to paint nothing interesting, nothing unique, nothing original or even nothing important every time you don't paint. With just a little more (or less) effort maybe even while you are painting you'll draw a blank, then perhaps a vortex, then maybe a black hole...
If you thought I was going somewhere with all this you still have a lot to learn about nothing. I looked at your work, and well I must say it seemed a bit agnomenistic (yes, it's a made up word, but you know what I mean) I could tell you really cared about nothing, and by nothing I mean not just the word nothing, but the real meaning of that word as well.
Perhaps we will collaborate one day by not doing anything to all the dead space in all the galleries in the world. It will be the largest installation ever constructed, what will be even more amazing is that it will require no effort. Are you with me? I'm on board, If you say yes then we've already done it. Of course, even if you don't say yes, we've pretty much already done it.
Here's to nothing collaborative!
--Xymyl (KON)
I was forwarded your site from a person who bought one of my NOTHING graffiti art canvases. I like your site and I am especially glad to see nothing. I love nothing and have been painting nothing for a while now. Check me at ebay under "BASHA ART"
Thanks,
BASHA>>>>>>>>
To which I replied:
BASHA,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding nothing interesting. I must mirror your sentiments about nothing and add that I enjoy nothing more than you do. I know this may come as a shock to someone who has painted nothing for so many years, but I have literally only made 3 paintings in the last 8 years. Absolutely all of the remaining time was dedicated to painting nothing. Once you develop that type of will power and strength of vision, you too will understand what it is to paint nothing interesting, nothing unique, nothing original or even nothing important every time you don't paint. With just a little more (or less) effort maybe even while you are painting you'll draw a blank, then perhaps a vortex, then maybe a black hole...
If you thought I was going somewhere with all this you still have a lot to learn about nothing. I looked at your work, and well I must say it seemed a bit agnomenistic (yes, it's a made up word, but you know what I mean) I could tell you really cared about nothing, and by nothing I mean not just the word nothing, but the real meaning of that word as well.
Perhaps we will collaborate one day by not doing anything to all the dead space in all the galleries in the world. It will be the largest installation ever constructed, what will be even more amazing is that it will require no effort. Are you with me? I'm on board, If you say yes then we've already done it. Of course, even if you don't say yes, we've pretty much already done it.
Here's to nothing collaborative!
--Xymyl (KON)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Fanmail: Nothing remains the same
On Dec 13, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Nishant John wrote:
Change is constant, but nothing will be the same.
To which I replied:
Dear nothing unthusiast,
I appreciate your comments, however, I am expected to refute direct claims made regarding nothing. In this recent note you have given me (at most) very little to work with.
I must point out however, that it could also be said that nothing is constant because there will always be change. I personally don't like to use nothing in this thingesque way but it does have its occasional advantages.
Actually, we appreciated your wording, because you used a single sentence tying the "change" and "nothing" together, then used "but" to show that the one and nothing weren't necessarily two things that were related but could very likely be one thing and nothing with no further relationship beyond the sentence containing them. Very nice indeed!
May we uncourage you to continue to develop your appreciation for nothing specific.
--Xymyl (KON)
Change is constant, but nothing will be the same.
To which I replied:
Dear nothing unthusiast,
I appreciate your comments, however, I am expected to refute direct claims made regarding nothing. In this recent note you have given me (at most) very little to work with.
I must point out however, that it could also be said that nothing is constant because there will always be change. I personally don't like to use nothing in this thingesque way but it does have its occasional advantages.
Actually, we appreciated your wording, because you used a single sentence tying the "change" and "nothing" together, then used "but" to show that the one and nothing weren't necessarily two things that were related but could very likely be one thing and nothing with no further relationship beyond the sentence containing them. Very nice indeed!
May we uncourage you to continue to develop your appreciation for nothing specific.
--Xymyl (KON)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Q&A Archive: Where is nothing made?
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Per-Niklas Longberg wrote:
Where do you manufacture nothing?
To which I replied:
Per-Niklas,
When we received your question we thought it was a very good question that required detailed lab work to determine the best answer. After more than 20 days in our lab, we were certain that the research team would have a great answer for us. We were somewhat disappointed at the results. The research clearly shows that your question was not a very good question after all.
Nothing is a naturally occurring limited infinite resource. What I mean by this is that we don't need to manufacture nothing because "it" "is" in ready "supply" due to the fact that "it" "is" limited to an infinite state of "being" due mostly to "it's" lack of properties, and partly due to the fact that nothing exists independently of anything. And we mean that in both ways.
So to get straight to the point, we manufacture nothing everywhere, because we don't. I hope this clears things (as they may or may not relate to nothing, which they don't) up.
--Xymyl (KON)
Where do you manufacture nothing?
To which I replied:
Per-Niklas,
When we received your question we thought it was a very good question that required detailed lab work to determine the best answer. After more than 20 days in our lab, we were certain that the research team would have a great answer for us. We were somewhat disappointed at the results. The research clearly shows that your question was not a very good question after all.
Nothing is a naturally occurring limited infinite resource. What I mean by this is that we don't need to manufacture nothing because "it" "is" in ready "supply" due to the fact that "it" "is" limited to an infinite state of "being" due mostly to "it's" lack of properties, and partly due to the fact that nothing exists independently of anything. And we mean that in both ways.
So to get straight to the point, we manufacture nothing everywhere, because we don't. I hope this clears things (as they may or may not relate to nothing, which they don't) up.
--Xymyl (KON)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Fanmail: A conversation about nothing
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hello, XYMYL. I am completely shocked to have discovered a website related, in every way possible, to a theory that my friend and I developed in our Physics class out of sheer boredom, and have developing for the past month. I would like to hear back from you regarding nothing, and have an (if at all possible) discussion about nothing.
To which I replied:
Hi Andrew,
A conversation about nothing? There is nothing I would enjoy more. I have been very busy lately though, as busy as nothing you have ever seen. But I still make time for nothing, just as I always have.
I'm assuming that this theory of yours is actually the absence of a theory, or the theory that such a theory wouldn't exist. Am I close on that one? I would have a conversation regarding this impossibility or others. Of course, the less said, the better.
Thanks for your interest in nothing.
--Xymyl (KON)
To which On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Well, as far as our theory, it's not so much the object of laziness, but an object itself. Nothing is an element. Atomic number 0. It is nowhere on the periodic table of elements, of course, because nothing is not tangible. But nothing is. Nothing is everywhere. Everything is nowhere. If you think about it, nothing makes sense.
To which I replied:
Andrew,
I'm certainly happy to see that you've proved one of my theories false thru your response. My theory was, of course, that you can't learn nothing in school.
I have to say though, that assigning an atomic number to nothing (even if that number is zero, if that is what you propose) could generate even greater confusion. I'll give an example, not only is nothing not an atom, "it" "is" also not light, gravity, or a thing made up of atoms such as a refrigerator. Should we be expected to make a new listing within every category just to point out that there is nothing missing? Indeed, should every refrigerator manufacturer be required to create a ZERO model that doesn't exist? And what about Sub Zero? People might think the products they sell are inverted refrigerators. They may have to re-brand and could (in the process) lose their proverbial shirts, thus having zero shirts.
I think that the fact that nothing isn't in the periodic table or the "chart" as we like to call it, is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Imagine a world where science was so accepting of nothing as a thing. Sucks right? In case you are not convinced, look at our modern dark age of communication. Nothing being categorized as a pronoun or even as a noun is commonplace, and yet, "it" "is" neither. This is the linguistic equivalent of what you propose with nothing being added to the chart.
Imagine a world where science ebbed and flowed with the whims of the masses, as does language. Now imagine nothing. One totally different thing and no thing at all, right?
True science will often use the testable to "scratch the surface" of the intangible, but it will never test the intangible. For example, a vacuum such as the void of space can be interacted with because there are properties to it. Although it may contain nothing in a general sense, it isn't nothing. True nothingness, would never be testable due to the total lack of properties, and the fact that a testing device would introduce something into what once wasn't. Of course, here at nothing.net, we embrace nothing in all "its" forms, but especially in the lack of form.
To conclude... Nothing as a placeholder is. Nothing infinite isn't. Nothing as a joke is. Nothing serious isn't. Nothing real "is" because "it" isn't.
Thank you for your continued interest in nothing scientific.
--Xymyl (KON)
To Which On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If a refrigerator company manufactured a refrigerator brand 'zero', it'd have to exist. But by creating a brand 'zero', the company has created a meaning for 'zero'. As false meaning. 'Zero' does not mean 'refrigerator'. 'Zero' means 'Nothing'. The absence of something. Nothing can define Zero. Nothing is indefinite. But, I suppose that outside the reaches of the result of the big bang, is Nothing in its purist form. The element Nothing I'm referring to. It is void of all that is and isn't tangible. The universal absence.
To which I replied:
Hello again Andrew,
Obviously, the brand 'zero' refrigerator would have to exist if it was manufactured. However, a zero model could exist without the corresponding refrigerator having been manufactured. A zero model that does not exist would be analogous to what you proposed regarding the element nothing. I said it wasn't such a hot idea. You seemed to think it was a great idea.
I appreciate that you point out that "zero" does not mean "refrigerator". I would like to add my corresponding claim that zero does not always equal nothing. I must also point out that nothing does not always mean the absence of something.
Zero is functional, zero is an integral part of a modern ten based numerical system. Zero is also highly useful as an intermediate point between positive and negative numbers. Zero can point to a lack or diminishment. And yes, as you rightly point out, zero can even mean nothing.
Although nothing CAN be used in functional in ways similar to zero, nothing is most widely used as no thing. This is not simply an absence of something, but nothing at all, making "it" independent of everything. Since you make a "big bang" reference, I'm assuming that you appreciate the idea of a time when everything was not in existence. I'd like to think that such a time existed, but sadly, a universe without anything would not be possible. And since nothing in the purest "form" would be featureless, "it" could never act or even react. This means that nothing would ever exist. So, clearly that dream could never be reality, and if it could, no one would be around to know.
So, although we may use the word nothing for all of its purposes, we always hold in highest regard, true nothing. Unbounded, unfettered, unfiltered, un-acted upon by anything, and unable to interact with anything. Incapable of propagating a universe or a grain of sand, or even a subatomic particle. I hope this helps you to see even more clearly why nothing amazes me.
Just as zero is the universal placeholder, nothing fills the void in our universe and beyond.
--Xymyl (KON)
Hello, XYMYL. I am completely shocked to have discovered a website related, in every way possible, to a theory that my friend and I developed in our Physics class out of sheer boredom, and have developing for the past month. I would like to hear back from you regarding nothing, and have an (if at all possible) discussion about nothing.
To which I replied:
Hi Andrew,
A conversation about nothing? There is nothing I would enjoy more. I have been very busy lately though, as busy as nothing you have ever seen. But I still make time for nothing, just as I always have.
I'm assuming that this theory of yours is actually the absence of a theory, or the theory that such a theory wouldn't exist. Am I close on that one? I would have a conversation regarding this impossibility or others. Of course, the less said, the better.
Thanks for your interest in nothing.
--Xymyl (KON)
To which On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Well, as far as our theory, it's not so much the object of laziness, but an object itself. Nothing is an element. Atomic number 0. It is nowhere on the periodic table of elements, of course, because nothing is not tangible. But nothing is. Nothing is everywhere. Everything is nowhere. If you think about it, nothing makes sense.
To which I replied:
Andrew,
I'm certainly happy to see that you've proved one of my theories false thru your response. My theory was, of course, that you can't learn nothing in school.
I have to say though, that assigning an atomic number to nothing (even if that number is zero, if that is what you propose) could generate even greater confusion. I'll give an example, not only is nothing not an atom, "it" "is" also not light, gravity, or a thing made up of atoms such as a refrigerator. Should we be expected to make a new listing within every category just to point out that there is nothing missing? Indeed, should every refrigerator manufacturer be required to create a ZERO model that doesn't exist? And what about Sub Zero? People might think the products they sell are inverted refrigerators. They may have to re-brand and could (in the process) lose their proverbial shirts, thus having zero shirts.
I think that the fact that nothing isn't in the periodic table or the "chart" as we like to call it, is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Imagine a world where science was so accepting of nothing as a thing. Sucks right? In case you are not convinced, look at our modern dark age of communication. Nothing being categorized as a pronoun or even as a noun is commonplace, and yet, "it" "is" neither. This is the linguistic equivalent of what you propose with nothing being added to the chart.
Imagine a world where science ebbed and flowed with the whims of the masses, as does language. Now imagine nothing. One totally different thing and no thing at all, right?
True science will often use the testable to "scratch the surface" of the intangible, but it will never test the intangible. For example, a vacuum such as the void of space can be interacted with because there are properties to it. Although it may contain nothing in a general sense, it isn't nothing. True nothingness, would never be testable due to the total lack of properties, and the fact that a testing device would introduce something into what once wasn't. Of course, here at nothing.net, we embrace nothing in all "its" forms, but especially in the lack of form.
To conclude... Nothing as a placeholder is. Nothing infinite isn't. Nothing as a joke is. Nothing serious isn't. Nothing real "is" because "it" isn't.
Thank you for your continued interest in nothing scientific.
--Xymyl (KON)
To Which On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If a refrigerator company manufactured a refrigerator brand 'zero', it'd have to exist. But by creating a brand 'zero', the company has created a meaning for 'zero'. As false meaning. 'Zero' does not mean 'refrigerator'. 'Zero' means 'Nothing'. The absence of something. Nothing can define Zero. Nothing is indefinite. But, I suppose that outside the reaches of the result of the big bang, is Nothing in its purist form. The element Nothing I'm referring to. It is void of all that is and isn't tangible. The universal absence.
To which I replied:
Hello again Andrew,
Obviously, the brand 'zero' refrigerator would have to exist if it was manufactured. However, a zero model could exist without the corresponding refrigerator having been manufactured. A zero model that does not exist would be analogous to what you proposed regarding the element nothing. I said it wasn't such a hot idea. You seemed to think it was a great idea.
I appreciate that you point out that "zero" does not mean "refrigerator". I would like to add my corresponding claim that zero does not always equal nothing. I must also point out that nothing does not always mean the absence of something.
Zero is functional, zero is an integral part of a modern ten based numerical system. Zero is also highly useful as an intermediate point between positive and negative numbers. Zero can point to a lack or diminishment. And yes, as you rightly point out, zero can even mean nothing.
Although nothing CAN be used in functional in ways similar to zero, nothing is most widely used as no thing. This is not simply an absence of something, but nothing at all, making "it" independent of everything. Since you make a "big bang" reference, I'm assuming that you appreciate the idea of a time when everything was not in existence. I'd like to think that such a time existed, but sadly, a universe without anything would not be possible. And since nothing in the purest "form" would be featureless, "it" could never act or even react. This means that nothing would ever exist. So, clearly that dream could never be reality, and if it could, no one would be around to know.
So, although we may use the word nothing for all of its purposes, we always hold in highest regard, true nothing. Unbounded, unfettered, unfiltered, un-acted upon by anything, and unable to interact with anything. Incapable of propagating a universe or a grain of sand, or even a subatomic particle. I hope this helps you to see even more clearly why nothing amazes me.
Just as zero is the universal placeholder, nothing fills the void in our universe and beyond.
--Xymyl (KON)
Monday, December 10, 2007
Q&A Archive: Personalized nothing?
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Brienne DeJong wrote:
Stupid question, but my kinda adopted little sis wants to know... If I send you $5 and my friends adress, will you send her an empty box, or nothing at all? If it's an empty box, can I send a personal message with it?
Thanks, Brienne
To which I replied:
Actually,
We send nothing, then, several weeks later we send a plain envelope with a small instruction book enclosed.
It explains nothing.
--Xymyl
Stupid question, but my kinda adopted little sis wants to know... If I send you $5 and my friends adress, will you send her an empty box, or nothing at all? If it's an empty box, can I send a personal message with it?
Thanks, Brienne
To which I replied:
Actually,
We send nothing, then, several weeks later we send a plain envelope with a small instruction book enclosed.
It explains nothing.
--Xymyl
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Fanmail Archive: Got nothing.
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 BEIL99 wrote:
I'm really pissed. I order nothing and I got nothing in return. This is the last time I will order nothing from you!! I may even take this nothing order up with the consumer affairs divsion of my local internet provider,who has nothing to say about nothing. From now on I will look forward to getting nothing from you and you will get nothing from me!! , Thanks for nothing
Dear Cunsumer,
To order nothing may mean not to order, or it may mean to pay money and get nothing in return. Since we've never received an order from you I'd have to assume it's the former.
Your interest in our lack of product brings us great pleasure. We are glad that nothing is such an important part of your life as to motivate you write such a spirited letter to us. I do hope, however, you send *actual* money (in the form of a check or money order) towards the purchase of nothing (remember, you not only get nothing but you'll get our instruction book free with every purchase).
Before you order, let me remind you. You get what you pay for.
Thank you.
Xymyl (KON)
I'm really pissed. I order nothing and I got nothing in return. This is the last time I will order nothing from you!! I may even take this nothing order up with the consumer affairs divsion of my local internet provider,who has nothing to say about nothing. From now on I will look forward to getting nothing from you and you will get nothing from me!! , Thanks for nothing
Dear Cunsumer,
To order nothing may mean not to order, or it may mean to pay money and get nothing in return. Since we've never received an order from you I'd have to assume it's the former.
Your interest in our lack of product brings us great pleasure. We are glad that nothing is such an important part of your life as to motivate you write such a spirited letter to us. I do hope, however, you send *actual* money (in the form of a check or money order) towards the purchase of nothing (remember, you not only get nothing but you'll get our instruction book free with every purchase).
Before you order, let me remind you. You get what you pay for.
Thank you.
Xymyl (KON)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Q&A Archive: Email nothing?
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 Ellimist45 wrote:
> can you send me back an e-mail with nothing in it? please, and thanks
To which I responded:
no
> can you send me back an e-mail with nothing in it? please, and thanks
To which I responded:
no
Friday, December 7, 2007
Fanmail Archive: Peoples Game Player?
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, ho goht wrote:
hi, i'm not a prankster who doesn't have anything better to do than do anything, i'm just Mr nothing on a everything world ...by queer coincidence, i happened to click on your web link from webcrawler search cos i searched for nothing....so why am i saying all these..could it be for something,,,i guess not cos i just have this to say to you.....YOU MUST BE A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER .......i said something but now it's ( ).
To which I responded:
I'm not sure what "A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER" is but it seems too extreme for someone like me. I like to just sit back and do nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
hi, i'm not a prankster who doesn't have anything better to do than do anything, i'm just Mr nothing on a everything world ...by queer coincidence, i happened to click on your web link from webcrawler search cos i searched for nothing....so why am i saying all these..could it be for something,,,i guess not cos i just have this to say to you.....YOU MUST BE A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER .......i said something but now it's ( ).
To which I responded:
I'm not sure what "A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER" is but it seems too extreme for someone like me. I like to just sit back and do nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Q&A Archive: Nothing Y2K Compliant?
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Don wrote:
Hi. I was impressed with nothing at your site. You have, by far, exceeded my expectations with respect to nothing and I felt compelled to comment on nothing at all.
I have been using nothing for years, and until recently, nothing was acceptable. But, I have a question; Is nothing Y2K compliant? Can I get a certified letter stating that nothing is Y2K? On Jan 1, 2000, will nothing function? I depend on nothing for almost everything. My wife thinks about nothing all day. My kids play with nothing, and I make my living getting better and better at nothing each day. (No I don't work for the government - I'm not that good at doing nothing).
I need more. Where can I get next to nothing?
To which I replied:
Don,
I'm glad you were impressed by nothing. Some may say that one who is impressed by nothing is easily impressed. If you know nothing like I do, you understand how difficult it can be to get all worked up over "it".
So, someone who is impressed by nothing is hardly impressed. (That is as opposed to easily (however not opposed as in opposite, just different.)
I'm glad to hear you and your family have been enjoying our products. (I use the term products in the sense far beyond the loosest possible sense, and by such statement mean lack thereof.) Nonetheless I enjoy hearing positive feedback about nothing (it's really difficult to come by these days).
Now on to your Y2K problem.
If you mean nothing at all...
I can not guarantee that nothing will work on (or after) January 1, 2000. In fact, it is my painful obligation to inform you that some things will be working that day. I could go into exhaustive detail... but... actually I don't have the time (so I can't).
If you mean nothing in general...
Yes, you have my guarantee that nothing will function on into eternity. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing will function perfectly, forever. Nothing will have nothing to do with the Y2K problems that will pop up shortly. In fact, on effected systems mission critical data may be lost, systems may fail, programs may halt or have fatal errors.
What does this mean? Nothing. No more errors, blue screens, lockups, shutdowns, disconnects, routeflaps, collisions, fragments, truncations... I could go on and on... but... actually...
Yes, January 1, 2000 is install nothing day! It's not a Y2K problem it's NO/OS extravaganza! A black hole blowout! I could go on and on...
If I only had the time.
Anyway, no, you can't get a certified letter nothing will work because it could be taken to mean that everything will stop.
All I'm saying is something will go wrong ... but never nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
P.S. I take exception to your statement about government workers being good at doing nothing. Yes, there are some government workers who seem to be doing nothing, but how did they get there? That's right, they had to walk to the bus.
Hi. I was impressed with nothing at your site. You have, by far, exceeded my expectations with respect to nothing and I felt compelled to comment on nothing at all.
I have been using nothing for years, and until recently, nothing was acceptable. But, I have a question; Is nothing Y2K compliant? Can I get a certified letter stating that nothing is Y2K? On Jan 1, 2000, will nothing function? I depend on nothing for almost everything. My wife thinks about nothing all day. My kids play with nothing, and I make my living getting better and better at nothing each day. (No I don't work for the government - I'm not that good at doing nothing).
I need more. Where can I get next to nothing?
To which I replied:
Don,
I'm glad you were impressed by nothing. Some may say that one who is impressed by nothing is easily impressed. If you know nothing like I do, you understand how difficult it can be to get all worked up over "it".
So, someone who is impressed by nothing is hardly impressed. (That is as opposed to easily (however not opposed as in opposite, just different.)
I'm glad to hear you and your family have been enjoying our products. (I use the term products in the sense far beyond the loosest possible sense, and by such statement mean lack thereof.) Nonetheless I enjoy hearing positive feedback about nothing (it's really difficult to come by these days).
Now on to your Y2K problem.
If you mean nothing at all...
I can not guarantee that nothing will work on (or after) January 1, 2000. In fact, it is my painful obligation to inform you that some things will be working that day. I could go into exhaustive detail... but... actually I don't have the time (so I can't).
If you mean nothing in general...
Yes, you have my guarantee that nothing will function on into eternity. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing will function perfectly, forever. Nothing will have nothing to do with the Y2K problems that will pop up shortly. In fact, on effected systems mission critical data may be lost, systems may fail, programs may halt or have fatal errors.
What does this mean? Nothing. No more errors, blue screens, lockups, shutdowns, disconnects, routeflaps, collisions, fragments, truncations... I could go on and on... but... actually...
Yes, January 1, 2000 is install nothing day! It's not a Y2K problem it's NO/OS extravaganza! A black hole blowout! I could go on and on...
If I only had the time.
Anyway, no, you can't get a certified letter nothing will work because it could be taken to mean that everything will stop.
All I'm saying is something will go wrong ... but never nothing.
Xymyl (KON)
P.S. I take exception to your statement about government workers being good at doing nothing. Yes, there are some government workers who seem to be doing nothing, but how did they get there? That's right, they had to walk to the bus.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Q&A Archive: Expensive Shirts?
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Killboy Powerhead wrote:
> why are your tshirts so fu**ing expensive?
To which I replied:
Because we waste so much time answering e-mail.
--Xymyl
> why are your tshirts so fu**ing expensive?
To which I replied:
Because we waste so much time answering e-mail.
--Xymyl
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Hatemail Archive: You can't do nothing...
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Jonathan Davis wrote:
i hate to be the one to tell you, but you can't do nothing without dying. if you truly want to do nothing don't breath,suffucate, eat, starve, sleep, stay awake, die, or live.
dumb ass.
To which I replied:
Johnny,
I hate to be the one to tell you this but...
You state, "you can't do nothing without dying" which is a double negative. That could mean either you can do anything without dying, you can do anything while alive, you must do something without dying, you must do something instead of dying, or you can do nothing with dying.
Let's examine these briefly:
1) you can do anything without dying
This statement is incorrect. I could jump off a tall building, tie dynamite to my head and ignite it, get hit by a bus etc...
2) you can do anything while alive
This is also a false statement. I can't go to the sun, or be completely eaten by maggots while alive (I could go on and on).
3) you must do something without dying
This is a lie. Whoever told you this should be shot while skiing. I've heard of people who died while flying or falling. In fact, it seems that you must be doing something if you are going to die.
4) you must do something instead of dying
This also is a total falsehood. I could choose to die, to live and die later on, or even to die while drinking my favorite wine.
5) you can do nothing with dying
This also is not entirely correct. Although you can do nothing while dying, you generally end up doing more than ever before. Many a mans last days are far busier than his earlier days. With trips to the hospital, calling 911, often speaking to the police, getting limbs amputated, I could go on and on... I think you get the idea.
I'm sure there are many more meanings for this sentence. You can be sure whatever they are, they will all prove you wrong (and probably stupid).
Xymyl (KON)
i hate to be the one to tell you, but you can't do nothing without dying. if you truly want to do nothing don't breath,suffucate, eat, starve, sleep, stay awake, die, or live.
dumb ass.
To which I replied:
Johnny,
I hate to be the one to tell you this but...
You state, "you can't do nothing without dying" which is a double negative. That could mean either you can do anything without dying, you can do anything while alive, you must do something without dying, you must do something instead of dying, or you can do nothing with dying.
Let's examine these briefly:
1) you can do anything without dying
This statement is incorrect. I could jump off a tall building, tie dynamite to my head and ignite it, get hit by a bus etc...
2) you can do anything while alive
This is also a false statement. I can't go to the sun, or be completely eaten by maggots while alive (I could go on and on).
3) you must do something without dying
This is a lie. Whoever told you this should be shot while skiing. I've heard of people who died while flying or falling. In fact, it seems that you must be doing something if you are going to die.
4) you must do something instead of dying
This also is a total falsehood. I could choose to die, to live and die later on, or even to die while drinking my favorite wine.
5) you can do nothing with dying
This also is not entirely correct. Although you can do nothing while dying, you generally end up doing more than ever before. Many a mans last days are far busier than his earlier days. With trips to the hospital, calling 911, often speaking to the police, getting limbs amputated, I could go on and on... I think you get the idea.
I'm sure there are many more meanings for this sentence. You can be sure whatever they are, they will all prove you wrong (and probably stupid).
Xymyl (KON)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)