"Big" and "small" are a pair of contradictions, a relationship of unity of opposites. Materialist dialectics tells us that "big" and "small" complement each other.

The so-called big and small are all relative terms. Big can be infinitely big, small can be infinitely small, but they are inexhaustible.

The problem does not seem to be "big" or "small" , but lies in "what kind of big" and "what kind of small", and "how to change from small to big" or "how to change from big to small". The question remains: why “big”? Why "small"?

The big river is majestic as it goes eastward, and the small bridges and flowing water are gentle and subtle. Each big and small has its own beauty and use.

The big meaning is small, and the small is big. They are mutually beneficial. Complement, complement each other, complement each other.