An Update on the Ideal Language: Letters and Teeth

Imagine that the gods and goddesses, our divine parents prove to be imminently practical in the way they have created us, and intended our structure (structural design) to teach what we need to know.  This would yield to the study of human anatomy a kind of special status.  For instance, suppose we were to note that our teeth are symmetical in several ways, that each of us (male and female) bear 32 teeth, and this means that the minimum required for ordinary discourse (communication) is 64.  Now let us add to our equation that many of the sounds we make (morphemes) that we form involve the use of our teeth.

Imagine that the number of letters in our grasp of the ideal alphabet has been handed to us, and that it stands at 64, the same number as the letters in the DNA “alphabet.”  That is, if you add the number of teeth found in one male and one female adult — 2 forms the complementary minimum for the production of human life (DNA recombination) — we would have 64.  The only letter we have in our alphabet that is formed in a part of the body not from the mouth or throat is the letter “N” in English.  Coincidentally, this “wrongful” (unfitting) letter leads the words in English most often indicating no-reference — No, not, never, negative, negation, the prefix “non-“, none, neither, etc.

In short, I believe that so far, the ideal language forms eight sets of 8 letters that are symmetrical.  This follows the pattern of our teeth (and the language of DNA).  Whether these letters should show as (two-fold) diphthongs (that is, as two letters that combine to make one sound, like “ph” in “philadelphia” makes the sound of the letter “f”), I remain unsure.  As far as I know, the Russian tongue has 33 letters, and is the only one that approximates 32.

The letters should bear (be composed of) straight lines only (these resolve most easily to the reading eye and create greater clarity), and each should receive careful scrutiny as to it symbolic meaning.  The alphabet should use only majuscules (capital letters, not lower case) that can reduce a little in size for the sake of economy — more letters per page.

Advertisements

The Still, Yet Even More New Math

I wish to notify those who might have an interest in a basic change I made recently in my understanding of the quantity transcendental — recall that I. Kant identified quantities as a transc. category.  I used to hold (as previous posts might indicate until I change them) that the most basic numerical sequence for all understanding of quantity was 2, 4, 6, 8.  I then begann to grow suspicious of the 6 because, if one divides it by 2 (another # of the q-sequence), you get an odd #.

I then revised the q-sequence to the following: 1, 2, 4, 8.   Although 1 does also form an odd number, it seems highly unique in that it signifies uniformity, as in the uniformity of nature. No other # does this. In other words, the # 1 might well be the ONLY necessary, odd #.  Unity is as inescapable as plurality.  This sequence therefore indicates my new understanding — progress ho — of the quantity transcendental.  The wise will, of course, take the time to consider such concepts.  This becomes especially necessary in light of the fact that, of all the disciplines, (different forms of) math seem(s) to have led the road into the future as the leader — ahead of all other areas of study — perhaps b/c of the development of the pyramids, whose dimensions provided much of the basis for one of the earliest math forms, with the “sekhed” (a shape describing the top of a pyramid) forming an integral part of the teaching of math in Egypt (acc. to the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, 1650 B.C.).

The Greeks may even have learned their love of triangle studies in (Euclidean) geometry from the pyramid shape — thanks Pythagoras.  This advisory is complete for now.