Thanks for dropping by.

rob

Thanks for this.

You’re certainly correct that I’m not using “misc” in the usual sense in which it refers to the left-overs of a taxonomy. In a standard miscellany, the pieces are not alike in any important way. In my sense of the misc, the pieces are alike in an indefinite and ever growing number of ways as people (and machines) discover the relationships. The misc in my sense is super-saturated with relationships and significance.

So, yes, “nothing is misc” is a fair characterization. Nothing stands apart from everything, sharing no likenesses. We can’t even conceive of such a thing. It may be beyond our biology.

I’d still go with the positive title, though, if only because “nothing is misc” might be taken as meaning that everything has to be given its one and only one place. Your point is a good one, nevertheless.

– David W.