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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)