People used
to say: to
have everything is as though to have nothing, or: to
want everything
is as if to want nothing, or: to be everywhere is like
to be
nowhere... And so on. The list of such sayings could be
really long:
to see everything is like to see nothing, to have heard
everything is
as if to have heard nothing, to know everything is as if
to know
nothing... Is it really so? Who knows... An overwhelming
majority of
sayings of that sort is very imprecise, this one as
well; not only
due to the phrase „as though” or „as if” or „like”;
although this phrase is very often omitted and not
uttered at all and
we say simply “to know everything is to know nothing”,
it is
present in our minds, and its presence indicates the
similarity of
the situations being compared, not their sameness. While
we can not
say that two things are more or less identical because
they are
either identical or they are not, we can easily say that
two things
are more or less similar. This is clear and obvious,
however obvious
things and matters also need profound analysis, since
their
obviousness is a very nasty trap so dangerous for our
awareness and
carefulness... And, interestingly, not everything can be
combined in
such a way. For example: to have eaten everything is as
though to
have eaten nothing. Even if we emphasized as
though,
this
sentence would sound bizarre. Perhaps the source of
bizarreness
is the fact eating is something concrete, of a binary
nature, 0-1,
not abstract like being, knowing or having (possessing)
are.
Well, in fact we don't know what to be, to have or to
know really
mean – but we know very well what to eat means. It
is
also very interesting whether the reversed saying
would bring the
same or at least similar message: to have nothing is
as if to have
everything, or: to know nothing is as though to know
everything...
And so on. Certainly, many a reversed saying would
surprise us with
its oddity, even craziness, also with troublesome
acuteness.
Let's
go
bravely forward and further.
To be everywhere is as if to be nowhere. If so, then: to go everywhere is like to go nowhere. What means that everywhere is nowhere. Or, everything is as if nowhere. Does it mean also that nowhere is everywhere? This I don't know. But I know that somewhere (under, over, above, before, behind or nearby) all other domains should be listed: the existing and used ones, the existing and not used ones (if there are any), the non-existing which might exist and be used... And so on. Practically this would mean to create the set of two-letter and three-letter combinations. And four-letter combinations, too. The fact many of them were not attributed to any domain existing now, did not mean such situation would last for ever. Nobody knows how many and what domains will appear – if .xxx means right now pornographic websites, .yyy could mean puritanic websites. And .unl combination could mean websites unlike all the others. For example. And so on. But, if: to write everything is as though to write nothing, while: to write nothing is as if to write everything, I wonder what we can expect clicking .AOD combination. |