[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

0 .. is or is not

Oct 11, 2000 09:39 AM
by Shampan-e-Shindh

Mr Carpenter wrote,

"It might be more accurate to refer to 0 as both being and
existant and non-existant rather than as non-existant. The term
non-existant might be best reserved for the will aspect itself
rather than
consciousness of the will aspect. This jives nicely with the
circle as
dividing/uniting it's inside area with the outside."

Totally agreed on that part. "Non-existent" is an inappropriate
term. What I actually meant was, more as in 1 to 9 are numbers
materialistically (in the most obvious common notion) existent. 0
is the non-materialistic, or lesser materialistic than any other
no. sitting on the line of abstractness, as soon as the concept
of that "non-materialistic-existent" occurs, the other numbers
seem to be effected ...making all no. a doubful existent, but
together they all exist, and that existence is .... the whole
"one" or 1 the number itself, which was the main grounds of my
theory. But also opens up whole new discussion which yours has
just implied. .

. The point is, as soon as abstractness or 0 comes in the
numbers world, the whole concept of mathematics start getting a
new dimension. Same as looking at two dimension geometry without
knowing the third, perhaps there are more, one we know of already
"time" perhaps the 4th.

As far as will, knowledge, consciousness goes, ...I fail to see
the definite links with no.s so distinctly fixed. I will read
your explanation again.. Let me get to the bottom of this.

This rusty brain has been too much involved with volunteer social
work, radio broadcast, record remastering, amateur music analysis
as recreation and tourism, other odd jobs for a living; for too

But please keep educating, I will catch up.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application