The not-not tried comfort in company with the what and the mere is. Despite much in common, the whats and the is and the not-not found not enough similarities, though interbred in mutual nothing. A difference intervened between being and not being-not. The not-not became confused because they were in truth not being not, their not being like absolute naught. The not-not was again not, associated in no way with is, and when they had been away for moments, the is was not immediately. All qualities of everything and mere “there” came no longer. No space available. Time shut. The lacks themselves rebelled against the others, lacks of lack. Thus, there came nothing and also came inability to remain nothing. Nothing of nothing was unable to be part of absolute naught, and so it, or they, was and were thrown from nothing at all. Not absolute naught because they were not not, they must have been something, yet they were not the bounds that ended things. Not the limiters and the truncators that assisted and brought about whats, they brought what from naught, be-limiters unable to be absolute naughts as well. The not not and the truncators had something in common: Nichts. Not-not and yellow-not-being-iron distinguished themselves, in that nothing was their difference. The not-not wanted to assert themselves as is – in fact they were in a certain sense – but is decidedly rejected them as is. They were merely not as far as is was concerned. The not-other found themselves rejected by the absolute naught, and the not-not wished to reject them as well, but the absolute naught rejected not-not as being, being in some way similar to not-other. All wished that the not of themselves be primary, desired the lack or negation of what they performed be counted as a what, what they were. They had already witnessed what happened when they refused one another and wanted that they continue their non-existence. The absolute naught were much less concerned that whatever exists falls into nothing. Only nothing at all would abide, all the same then, that much better. The not-not, the not-other and the what-is that were their children appealed to absolute naught, explaining that some portion of them shared in what and not-other and not-not. What-is was the most offensive to absolute naught, though the what-is came to be as a something-toward-which, and in the sense that without an other it was not, the what-is was nothing, laboring at being in the manner of absolute naught and dividing into whats whatever ends became. Their limits were part of nothing that acted towards another as it divided, both negations.
“The not-not is most close to you,” said a council of partial nothings. “The not-other somewhat distant, and the what-is is yet more distant, yet the what-is and the not other are the same.”
Absolute naught said nothing, but nothing-being makes what-comes-prior and what-is, though the absolute naught refused its own offspring.
“And they have nothing in common,” continued the council. “And so they are share of you, so to speak.”
The is and the not-not were compelled to find a share of being. Then came back space. Time followed. All of these wranglings were good, because should they have continued to disagree and reject one another, all of nothing would have come loose.