I heart

everything is nothing and nothing is everything
or
every thing is nothing and nothing is every thing
or
everything is no thing and no thing is everything
or
every thing is no thing and no thing is every thing

I'm not sure how to slice this one up. This is how I see it right now and I could very possibly be inside out that is right side in that is downside up that is... wrong? If wrong exists

"Everything" and every-thing are not the same at all. "Everything" is the collective and every- thing is addressing the individual. Every single thing, I don't know right now if I can imagine every thing just this room is so many things made up of so many things and on it goes so "everything" is convenient, it's nice packaged sealed. For some reason the "everything" is spherical in nature although that is entirely a mind's eye thing and that is mine. Maybe I'm being a little egocentric relating the "everything" to earth which is not even close to all encompassing, but this is how I see it. So I have "everything" which contains every-thing. Hardly as simple as I am making this out to be but for the purpose of this question I have to make it this way. If I didn't I would be breaking and breaking and breaking, maybe forever I mean if forever is real. For - ever, ever being immeasurable Gah! distractions. focus and simple and focus and next

is the "nothing" as in a lack of thing more like nothingness a state of non existence. is "nothing" real? what seems like nothing take for example empty room space I've been told is crawling with the every-thing, atoms and particles of gases and light and tides of sound waves only to begin with! so that illusion of no-thing is replaced by the theory of matter which is I guess the theory of every-thing. However, and this is based on what I have been told not what I know for fact which could topple everything this wobbly idea tower is building up to be. We that is the "everything" is surrounded by no-thing, that is a vacum. Vacum being completely void of not just every-thing but any-thing. Now if the "everything" is surrounded by no-thing here and no-thing there around it in all spots that collectively the "everything" is surrounded by the "nothingness".

this is where the theory started to bend the brain so I got some concretes.

a rubber ball to represent the "everything" containing every-thing
a tissue to represent the "nothingess" which contains absolutly no-thing
so I take the ball and wrap it in the tissue. I guess this is kind of rough idea. "Everything" somehow suspended in "nothing".
so now my question is, how? how did it happen?

it could be the attractions and the connections, thing attracts thing regardless of the nature of the thing, bonds maybe chemical, maybe something else. So things atrract things to make bigger things, two hydrogen and one oxygen atom will attarct each other, those three things make a molecule of water, another thing, molecules attarct eachother make drops, make pools, make streams, make rivers, make oceans, make plants. Things~things~things~things to make every-thing which is all roled up into the "everything".
The "everything" though is not solid, there are spaces betwen every-thing the same way it built up into things it breaks down by the no-things betwen the things. The spaces or the cracks you have to look close but not too close to see them, often missed but there. So for my concrete theory to be accurate there would have to be the tinniest bits of the tissue which is the existance of no-thing betwen every-thing, that is emebeded throughout the rubber ball.

The more I think about it the more I realize what I am having most trouble with is well "is"

everything is nothing~everything contained within nothing= every thing betwen no thing

nothing is everything~nothing contained within everything=no thing betwen every thing

maybe that is a little logical, maybe that makes a little sense.
However, I am afraid I am doing terrible injustice to "is"

word law says: is means to be and to be is to exist so "is" is a present form of being

well I can agree with this

no-thing is being every-thing (as in no one thing is being every single thing) that make sense right?
but, every-thing is being no-thing (as in every single thing is no one individual thing) is problematic.

maybe it's that the two need each other. neither can really exist without the contradiction or seperation of the other.

Rubber balls and tissues are neither every-thing nor no-thing the are simply "thing"

however they contain every-thing that is the connections and bits that make up every-thing
they also contain no-thing the spaces, the nothingness might give it form.

"hmmm"

I hope no one wastes thier time on this conclusionless mind dribble






.... that's a lie