Locomotive

The Male & Female Symbols are these: http://timcourtois.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/male_female.jpg

But the numbers were for the ancient Greeks, Even and Odd (one was not a Number):

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, …

Mathematics seems to have discover the Adam and Eve of Arithmetic: 0, 1 (zero & one);

Notice that they are also even & odd, female and male – yes, Eve comes before Adam.

So why not take explicit notice of the Vagina Zero: O (Capital letter o), and the Penis One: I (Capital letter i).

- oh mi God. I can’t believe it.

Is sexism the result of the fact that zero is nothing, but God is One; but gOd is also one.

Wherever “0″ or “o” occurs we have the true Goddess,
but in the case of 1 or I we merely have “masculine” non-plurality.

Notice that a child is born out of a wOman, and that Man appears castrated
- shouldn’t he rather be Iman? Or iman. OK, so he’s always masculine in the first person singular “I” I’ll exlcaim it!
He even plays fiddle to Hymans..

The natural numbers now begin like so: 0, 1, 2, 3, ….

But 1 always wants to get inside of 0, or I wants to penetrate 0.

In the beginning Adam just wanted to copulate with eve by multiplying her like so:

1 x 0 = 0

but as you can plainly see in the above, it just left her flat.

Was it Satan who taught him that juxtaposition was also insufficient:

01 = 10 because it’s really 0 x 1 = 1 x 0 = 0 – the latter disguising the same result?

How long did it take him to learn that Eve required additional foreplay:

Or should I say that Eve required of Adam the foreplay of addition like so
to produce the result of pleasure, without knowing who the resulting one would really be:

0 + 1 = 1 + 0 = 1 (not zero! Erika).

But it was not until the 19th century when Peano conceived,

the Sneaky & Snaky Successor Operator S applied to Adam alone (being the 1st to master bating):

S(1) = 2 (an even, feminine daughter, but no son or Eve).

Not long thereafter Eve too (not two) realized that could do it alone
- with the great fringe benefit of creating him like so:

S(0) = 1 (a odd, masculine son, or Adam).

The moral of this story, is its conclusion, that 0 precedes 1 in our enumeration, as well as our binary system:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …. & 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, …

Every word which possess iconicity
is its own Mnemonic Device
- helps us remember the meaning
because it looks like its own meaning.

What you’ve uncovered for all webers
(my neologism for uses the WWW),
or googlers (I dropped the C/capital)
is that every word
which possesses the property of iconicity
is its own Mnemonic Device.

So for example,
it would be easy to remember
that a Dromedary is one-hump Camel,
while a Bromedary is a two-hump Camel
(for the moment even I forgot which is which.

Carl – I’m currently writing mathematics
and I try to express
“mathematical structures,” “abstract algebras,” “universal algebra”
by having the Symbols and Concepts
resemble their meaning.
There’s no better word
for that concept or notion
than ICONICITY;
And its you, Carl, who occupies Web space
with the prominence of that notion informally
on the internet!

You’ve heard of “The Book”
(any alleged book attributed to God
as containing God’s words).

Think of the Web as
The Book of the Human Spices (homo s…).

You, Carl, have opened the chapter on iconicity
which goes beyond Wikipedia
because it permits
neologisms, poetry, and one’s own
creative remarks and observations.

So thank you, Carl!

Do you find
“Callipygous”
(1) descriptively in possession of its own nature, as well as
(2) self-descriptive, or you-self descriptive; or is
“Calligyian.”

And is it a neologism, and/or, a vulgarity,
to say to a woman that she is extremely
bootylicious?

And in writing to one’s girlfriend, or wife,
would it be even less, or more suitable
to write to her lovingly,
but sexually as well,
that one finds her
no less than J Lo,
or Kim Kardashian,
bOOtylicious?

But if that offends
consider if a

Bactrian Camell

is iconictically
distinguished from a

Dromedary Camel

in virtue of the “D” or “B”
on one another’s back, backs, Back, or Backs.
Too back we don’t have “dack” or “Dack
for that other sort
of camel’s back.
I’d prefer to have had
Adam name each species simply
Camels and Bamels
for the sake of iconicity.

There’s lot’s of alleged progress with Computers and mathematics.

The Binary system, with 0 & 1 as the only digits is a simplification improved to our numeration system of the digits 0,1,…,9.

But for our purpose here the old, primitive tally system of the caveman would be most suitable, don’t you agree?

0 = [nothing! not the blank ]

1 = |

2 = || [it's not eleven!]

3 = |||

4 = ||||

5 = |||||

… [I'll stop here since the cavemen could only count up to five, after that, he said "mmmmmmmmmmmmmany"]

And that wonderful ellipsis … is it supposed to symbolize far away soundtracks going into infinity?

PS: Does anyone one know the name of the tally symbol?