reply to post by bobthealie11
I have often been conflicted with the same question...
On one hand, you have a number system that in the number 10 includes the number 0. And one can argue that in order for there to be 1 there has to be
On the other hand, in order to define 10, implies an addition of a digit, which then should exclude any notion of nothingness, for 10 is a derivative
of 1+2+3+4=10, which doesn't contain a prerequisite of 0. So, is it then faulty to even have a 0 in the notation of 10?
Here's the way I see it...
If everything can bee seen as stemming from a singularity, this would imply that 1 should be the start. Not zero... When we identify an object, or
even a group of objects..., it would only make sense that applying a number to them would have to start with 1. To start with zero, would to be
identifying an object that isn't actually there, and would be a waste of time.
So all in all... if i'm not mistaken as to the characteristics of the two different numerology systems... Chaldean numerology doesn't us the number
0. This to me, would be more appropriate. Which then would also coincide with the notion that there was no year 0, and in fact started with one.
I still hold any and all Pythagorean definitions of numbers and their characteristics as being the most correct between the two. The one that I find
to be the most accurate, and a construct of deeper reasoning is that of Mayan Numerology. 1-13. It's been a while since I've had any in depth
thought about the subject though...
Although that will soon be changing, for my friend will be returning back to the country, and is determined to write the longest book possible in
regards to numerology, and he wants my help. Only because he claims that my reasoning skills will be a huge contribution to his writings.
I thought I used to be fairly acquainted with numerology... this dude has an entire computed dedicated to it! With multiple programs, charts, solar
bliggity blah blahs and so forth. Truly amazing the depth in which one can attempt to apply numerology.
All in all, go with Chaldean in my opinion, which is subject to change...