no two objects so dissimilar that he cannot

[Seiichi Myoga]

Have a look at (1). You might want to change "; " into "(,) with" or insert "being" in between "objects" and "so," but let's leave it out of consideration here.

(1) His mind finds categories everywhere; no two objects so dissimilar that he cannot fit them into a relationship.
(D. Watt, Literary Criticism)

In my understanding, (2) adequately explains what the original phrase (or small clause) in (1) means.

(2) he can fit all objects into a relationship, no matter how dissimilar they may be

Do you agree?

Also, any stylistic suggestions will be appreciated.
Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

[Haihao]

No, I don't again.

he can fit any two objects into a relationship, for they cannot be that dissimilar.

[Jamie (K)]

Seiichi, you're right. Number (2) does explain that phrase correctly.

[Haihao]

It seems to me that the original phrase has a limitation on dissimilarity: no two objects can be dissimilar to that extent while (2) has no limitation: no matter how dissimilar. Also, the most important, (2) changed "two objects" to "all objects", which makes difference. BTW, if that were true, then the word "disrelation" would have no meaning any more.

[Jamie (K)]

[Seiichi Myoga]

Dear Haihao and Jamie (K),

I do appreciate your help and comments.

My interest was in whether <No two X are so Y that ...not Z> was a subtype of <No X is so Y that ... not Z>.

Thank you

Seiichi MYOGA