*1 FEBRUARY 2011*
i’m going to finish this pot of coffee and then fast until midnight.
call me out on it if i don’t stick to it. only water for the next (less than) 18 hours!
ever wonder how we as a people went from 1 to 2?
i’m speaking of the transition in a representational sense. seems counterintuitive. the always-straightforward romans just doubled up to II.
(and how did “to” come to represent transition itself?)
(and how did ‘too’ come to mean a mere appendage with the addition of an extraneous ‘o’? is ‘o’ taken to mean ‘0’? as in, its addition has no phonetic significance but is merely a visual cue to change definition and save linguistic space by ‘doubling up’ / ascribing dual meanings to the same sound)
*dial up chomsky*
my own take is that one unit to two units should be represented as:
1 to ___
(in other words, vertical line to horizontal line)
(a lot less confusing for children who struggle with mathematics at an early age)
(bear with me, ironically enough my directional keys are starting to act up on me)
(i’m a particularly violent typist)
(i’ve also left a wake of broken pencils + crayons)
(as well as ground teeth)
wonder if one can patent a new numerical system. if so, you can be sure i’m already on it 🙂
bear with me here.
‘zero’ = ‘nothing’ = ‘oval’ (as visually represented in modern economy)
(egg connotation???)
(as in ‘goose-egg’ as slang for failure on scoreboard)
(or elliptical orbit as in planets around a sun?)
i say why not make zero a perfect circle. that’ll simplify things visually in two-dimensions once we start working with straight lines to represent ‘something’ (as opposed to the circle which represents ‘nothing’ (or perhaps, lack of disruptive forces on a planet’s orbit)
fundamental parallels can be drawn between a circle and a square
fundamental parallels CANNOT be drawn between an oval and a square
(this’ll centralize things around a point of infinitely small size)
remember kids, the world is only will (the aforementioned ‘straight line’) and representation (where that straight line starts and where that straight line finishes)
(if you’re not a straight line, you’ll soon be back in orbit again with all the other electrons)
(in this case, it really is hip to be square)
(i’m often pausing to wonder why i’m putting all this effort into developing a working duodecimal system. then i realize it really will ‘expand minds’ (not artificially like drugs supposedly do / as drugs only scramble preconceived notions). a numerical system is nothing more than grouping. subdivisions between nothing and infinity (with negative numbers nothing more than sins from former lives catching up with your current state)
next we’ll address the very transition itself. as alluded 2 earlier (the constraints of the english language are revealing themselves in the multifaceted meanings of (the sound) ‘to’), “to” usually is taken to mean the transition.
“from” 1 “to” 2
to make things more explicit, we employ a vector:
1 –> 2
the representation of the vector itself is a combination of straight lines (or ‘ones’) arranged in 3 different ways. one goes horizontal (from vertical and then two arbitrarily shrunken ‘ones’ are bent at competing 45-degree angles and meeting at a point at the very right. it is implied (though not explicitly stated) that both mini-ones ‘start’ at the left and ‘end’ at the shared endpoint on the right)
another question to ask ourselves…why is progress represented from left to right?
(is it because we as a people are right-handed?)
(or are we as a people right-handed because of the way our culture represents progress?)
i’m gonna be careful not to kick off this mathematical revolution prematurely lest all the teenyboppers use the new system as an excuse to overthrow their math teachers.
although would this necessarily be a bad thing?
.
.
*👨🔬🕵️♀️🙇♀️*SKETCHES*🙇♂️👩🔬🕵️♂️*
.
.
.
.
.
👈👈👈☜*“FEBRUARY JOURNALS”* ☞ 👉👉👉
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥