The saying has always been a bit peculiar in my view. It gives me an impression of National pride, a bit of macho posturing, and the image of the snake. I figured the snake was the representation of something that, if you stepped on it, would whip around and bite you. Hence the warning, "Don't tread on me."
So I finally bothered to give the saying some actual thought and consideration. I came to a perspective that is a little different than the one described above. "Don't Tread On Me." is more than a tough guy slogan of National pride. It's actually a practical expression of how to succeed in a world of freedom and liberty. I am an anarchist. That doesn't mean spray paint, spiked hair, and using foul language talking to my parents. What it means is that I believe in the ultimate positivity of human nature. That we can govern ourselves. That we don't need to create entities to control us and limit our freedom in the name of order.
In the world I would prefer to live in, "Don't Tread On Me." would be a fundamental tenet. What it means is: Live your life, enjoy your freedom, just pay enough attention to your behavior to avoid stepping on me and my freedom. Critics often respond to this notion with the argument that in such circumstance, you aren't actually free. Bull fuck. I don't have time to sit around and argue semantic, legal-esque type arguments. You can be considerate and still be free. If you disagree based on semantic definitions, then feel free to go sit on a dildo and stroke your genitals; you ARE the problem.
Anyway, "Don't Tread On Me." is an individual and personal, philosophical expression of how we can enjoy freedom and liberty without fighting each other to assert our commitment to such values.
12601
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Another Look Our Number System...
O.k. so the latest revised number system can be thought of as two sets of four plus one oddball for each set of four (0 and 5 being the oddballs). Practically:
0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
the next item of interest is concerning consistency. if 0 is not an actual number and just a "place holder" then 5 should have a similar designation. Thus far, it does not. Furthermore, I haven't had enough time to come up with a way of dealing with such set up. So lets take it the other way - Let's say 0, like 5, IS a number and not any different except that it's zero... ?
Now, here's the neat stuff... consider the "space" between 0 and 1. Is that space part of 0 or part of 1? In a practical sense, as long as you're below 1 and above zero, are you still in the "zero zone" or are you in the "one zone". i.e. there's a space between each whole number. That space is either part of the number above it, or part of the number below it. You'll see why this matters in a moment... Lets say for example, the space is part of the number below it.
So our set begins directly on zero and is "part of zero" until you hit 1. from that point you're traveling in the zone of 1 until you actually hit 2. Think of this in a physical representation...
because the space between numbers is associated with the number below it, zero is actually (for all practical purposes) one. yes, zero is actually one. Well, extremely close to one - as close as you can get without being one.
The reason this oddity arises is because I'm dealing only with whole numbers - no decimals. I'm doing so because they are a better representation of reality. In reality there are no decimals. either something exists (represented as 1) or it doesn't exist (represented as 0 - or so we're lead to believe). Something can't half-exist - at least I can't imagine it thus far. So, I restrict the inquiry to whole numbers. O.k., back to dealing with the reality of the space between numbers issue...
In our first solution - associating the space with the number below it, we ended up with this strangeness of zero actually being closer to what we presently call 1. One good thing that this approach does is make 9 physically more like 10. I say this is good because it creates a likeness between the system and reality (10 fingers, 10 toes, etc.) So we could say 5 and 0 are representative of our thumbs and 1-4 and 6-9 are our fingers... Still zero being one isn't quite ideal, let's try the other way...
What happens if we associate the space between numbers with the number above it?
Well, 1 is akin to the real world i.e. 1 is actually 1, 2 is 2, etc. But, 9 is now 9 which makes our system less connected to reality... or does it? Let's consider zero.
Recall, zero is a number, not a place holder. This is so we don't have to do some undetermined tweaking of 5 to account for it's "zeroness". As such, zero would now consist of the space below it as well. Hmmm... so zero is now actually more like -1. For some reason I like that. I need to go think about this for a little while...
0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
the next item of interest is concerning consistency. if 0 is not an actual number and just a "place holder" then 5 should have a similar designation. Thus far, it does not. Furthermore, I haven't had enough time to come up with a way of dealing with such set up. So lets take it the other way - Let's say 0, like 5, IS a number and not any different except that it's zero... ?
Now, here's the neat stuff... consider the "space" between 0 and 1. Is that space part of 0 or part of 1? In a practical sense, as long as you're below 1 and above zero, are you still in the "zero zone" or are you in the "one zone". i.e. there's a space between each whole number. That space is either part of the number above it, or part of the number below it. You'll see why this matters in a moment... Lets say for example, the space is part of the number below it.
So our set begins directly on zero and is "part of zero" until you hit 1. from that point you're traveling in the zone of 1 until you actually hit 2. Think of this in a physical representation...
because the space between numbers is associated with the number below it, zero is actually (for all practical purposes) one. yes, zero is actually one. Well, extremely close to one - as close as you can get without being one.
The reason this oddity arises is because I'm dealing only with whole numbers - no decimals. I'm doing so because they are a better representation of reality. In reality there are no decimals. either something exists (represented as 1) or it doesn't exist (represented as 0 - or so we're lead to believe). Something can't half-exist - at least I can't imagine it thus far. So, I restrict the inquiry to whole numbers. O.k., back to dealing with the reality of the space between numbers issue...
In our first solution - associating the space with the number below it, we ended up with this strangeness of zero actually being closer to what we presently call 1. One good thing that this approach does is make 9 physically more like 10. I say this is good because it creates a likeness between the system and reality (10 fingers, 10 toes, etc.) So we could say 5 and 0 are representative of our thumbs and 1-4 and 6-9 are our fingers... Still zero being one isn't quite ideal, let's try the other way...
What happens if we associate the space between numbers with the number above it?
Well, 1 is akin to the real world i.e. 1 is actually 1, 2 is 2, etc. But, 9 is now 9 which makes our system less connected to reality... or does it? Let's consider zero.
Recall, zero is a number, not a place holder. This is so we don't have to do some undetermined tweaking of 5 to account for it's "zeroness". As such, zero would now consist of the space below it as well. Hmmm... so zero is now actually more like -1. For some reason I like that. I need to go think about this for a little while...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)