[Aztlan] zero does not mean

[John Major Jenkins]

D.,
I was actually removing interpretive ambiguity by eliminating the reference to "zero" and simply calling 0.0.0.0.0 "shell-shell-shell-shell-shell." My point was that Lloyd's interpretation of the shell glyph as "zero" introduced a connotive secondary intepretation, possibly partially true but subject to the introduction of unconscious assumptions), whereas simply refering to the shell glyph as "shell" applied, objectively, its primary and unambiguous denotation.     I think that's a pretty clear distinction. 

You wrote: "The other item is that "the string 0.0.0.0.0 would be logical" even though it has never been used in any codex at all." I used the statement "the string 0.0.0.0.0 would be logical..." in an analogy I was making to a future civilization encountering a hypothetical string of symbols, such as 0.0.0.0.0, and how they would logically interpret it as "circle.circle.circle.circle.circle" if they were unaware of our conceptual and symbolic system. Therefore, your observation that it was never used in any codex missed my point. 

JMJ
  

-----Original Message-----
>From: "D. M. Urquidi" <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Jul 22, 2008 3:07 AM
>To: ECOLING at aol.com
>Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] zero does not mean "shell"
>
>Folks:
>
>This began an interesting thread, I think.
>
>> The most objective stance is to call
>> what was formerly, and possibly mistakenly, designated
>> 0.0.0.0.0 "shell.shell.shell.shell.shell."  I personally
>> think that's rather silly, but that would be the safe scientific 
>> position.  
>
>The first comment that struck my eye, was that the "objective stance is . . . . but that would be the 'safe' scientific position"
>
>What is scientific about guess work? True, the "shell" symbol has been "proven" (here actually "assumed") to be a true zero, but who has spoken with an actual Aztec or Maya from the time (or era) the codices were written?
> 
>> If a future culture encountered our mathematical symbol of
>> "0" or the string 0.0.0.0.0 it would be completely logical for them to
>> identify this as "circle.circle.circle.circle.circle"
>> until further evidence proved otherwise.
>
>The other item is that "the string 0.0.0.0.0 would be logical" even though it has never been used in any codex at all. So how can it be called "logical" or even "scientific"?
>
>I am a bit confused by this. I do believe that the zero could be the "shell" glyph, but the 0.0.0.0.0 has no further evidence that I am aware of, figuratively or literally.
>
>Dea
>
>
>
>      
>_______________________________________________
>Aztlan mailing list
>http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>