remembrance

One fine winter day I found myself staring into a young lady's décolletée (to this term I shall refer from now on as shirt-crack, for simplicity) and this wasn`t because I saw something that earned my liking. I was thinking about the effect of absence on the human perception. Now, I know that it does not seem too logical but the young lady had no tits whatsoever, and this titlessness really proved me that we can not perceive nothing.

I mean she had no tits whatsoever, but I kept on searching, looking at details, analysing her bra (push-up) and it was absolutely infuriating to see the lack of what should obviously be there. She was showing them off, right? for as far as I know that is the purpose of the shirt-crack. And this whole experiment nearly stopped at the point where I catalogued her as a flat chested girl who is on the implant waiting list, at silicones of course. But no sir, not this time, she was reading! Reading! Than I thought there must be something more. Checked the tits again. Nothing. And that was the moment when it struck me!

I denoted the obvious absence of something with the term nothing, thus making a fatal error. A very common one. Nothing is not a lack of certain elements. The lack of an element, or it`s absence is not nothing, it is negative perception (hard enough on its own, like try drawing a picture, but not by sketching the shapes, but the empty spaces between them), and nothing also cannot be something, thus through negative definition, nothing is: